I have now met a real life creationist.

[Keith&Co.]

Well, wilson dismisses philosophy, so that defeats the dilemma... Ignoring a problem is equal to refuting it, right?
Not sure how wilson defines philosophy, though...

Isn't that like dismissing thinking?

Yeah.
I have always understood philosophy to be the intellectual part of anything humans do. So you can have a knitting philosophy, a driving philosophy, a philosophy about tire pressure, a philosophy about how to dig ditches... I would guess he thinks it refers to things that have no application, those ideas that philosophers argue about because they only exist as intellectual exercises. But this would be another case where words have meanings, and people who don't understand them are hamstrung when they try to convey their feelings, ideas and forfubbles. If no one groks your forfubble, you're just spinning your gleesputs and getting gumclum everywhere.

No matter how much you act like yours is the superior fincherk.

 

[blastula]

Worse than than that, he dismisses both philosophy and theology, while also saying he can refute philosophy with religion.

You need philosophy to refute philosophy.

Only if you're a materialist. I can refute it with religion which has no theoretical basis.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, what we have is a terribly opinionated creationist who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, feeling smug and superior while he demonstrates his limitations.

If that's not redundant...

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes, that's the entire point we're trying to make. Trying to use the Bible as a source for laws and standard of moral behavior is frigging stupid because you need to find reasons to discount and ignore large portions of it in order to cherry pick out the parts which actually align with decent laws and standards of moral behavior. When you need to do that, the text you're doing that to is not actually a source for those standards. This is made worse by the fact that inconsistencies arise when you try to put two parts of it together like you do with the Jesus healing on the Sabbath thing. The logical conclusions which one comes to are dumb because the premise of using Biblical passages as a source for laws and morality is a dumb premise to begin with.

Also demonstrated by Plato in the Euthyphro dilemma. As far as I know nobody has come up with a valid refutation of that?

There's no need to refute a false dilemma.
In fact, technically, it's not possible to 'refute' a false dilemma.

Which is it? ...have you or have you not stopped beating your wife?

 

[blastula]

Showing it's a false dilemma would refute it. Can you do so?

 

[Lion IRC]

...Trying to use the Bible as a source for laws and standard of moral behavior is frigging stupid because you need to find reasons to discount and ignore large portions of it in order to cherry pick out the parts which...

If I look at a 50 year old science book I will certainly need to cherry pick that which is and is not still true.
Pluto. Is a planet. Is not a planet. Is a planet. Is not a planet.
Empiricism is the best.

And nobody here will raise an eyebrow when science text books change in order to keep up with current truths.

So why are folks straining at the goads over the idea that God would have unique laws in place for a selected group of people at a very unique time in their history?

It's a huge double standard especially since a lot of counter-apologetic bible skepticism is aimed directly at alleged bible contradictions related to obvious examples where God commands one thing here and something different there.

Eg. skeptics annotated bible quibbling and whining over clean versus unclean animals. (Leviticus)
...oh but Lion IRC didn't God declare that all of His creation was good? (Genesis)

Eg. skeptics annotated bible quibbling and whining over "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus)
...oh but Lion IRC why does God command killing? (Leviticus)

Notwithstanding any cherry picking or hermeneutics, or manuscript copying errors, or doctrinal disputes, there is NO disagreement among biblical theists that obeying God is the first most important starting point.

So even if Tom Sawyer just so happened to be right and I ought not to be eating shellfish and wearing clothes made from mixed threads, that in no way detracts from my emphatic belief that God's law ought to be obeyed.
I'm not altering my conviction that God is always right.

No Christian AFAICT says that God-given Mosaic laws were bad laws.

 

[blastula]

Psst, science texts aren't presented as divine and infallible.

 

[Lion IRC]

Showing it's a false dilemma would refute it. Can you do so?

Yes. This is another version of Euthyphro -
...Do wise people to do wise things because they are they themselves are wise or because it is wise to do wise things?

...Are good things good because we know they are good or because they actually are good?

...Is it good to do good things or bad not to do good things?

...Can it be good to do a bad thing?


The Euthyphro dilemma already accepts (presupposes) that "good" ontologically exists as the opposite of "bad".

And if it (the good) is already ontologically real then Euthyphro is asking a redundant, circular question....do good people do good things because they are good or because the good things are good and so when good people do them we say that is good?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Psst, science texts aren't presented as divine and infallible.

Also, we don't use today's science in order to decide which parts of a 200-year-old science source book are still relevant, just so we can say that we teach science from a 200-year-old source book.

If something in the 200YOSB has been replaced by current thinking, we can point to the actual science which relegated that theory to the dustbin.
People wanting to ostracize or punish The Gays IAW the OT, but not stone people who work on the Sabbath, IAW the OT, don't have a published index where God reveals which OT scripture does and does not apply.

It's not a double standard, it's a standard and there's a book that doesn't come up to the bare minimum standard.

 

[Lion IRC]

IOW - we can answer Euthyphro in one word.
"Both"

 

[blastula]

Showing it's a false dilemma would refute it. Can you do so?

Yes. This is another version of Euthyphro -
...Do wise people to do wise things because they are they themselves are wise or because it is wise to do wise things?

...Are good things good because we know they are good or because they actually are good?

...Is it good to do good things or bad not to do good things?

...Can it be good to do a bad thing?

Those aren't the same form as Euthyphro. They aren't even the same among themselves. Euthyphro simply asks whether the good is dependent on God or independent of God. Where's the false dilemma in that?

The Euthyphro dilemma already accepts (presupposes) that "good" ontologically exists as the opposite of "bad".

And if it (the good) is already ontologically real then Euthyphro is asking a redundant, circular question....do good people do good things because they are good or because the good things are good and so when good people do them we say that is good?

Yes, the dilemma assumes the good, but the rest is a misunderstanding of the dilemma. It's not asking about any person's moral status, it's asking about the nature of the good.

 

[Ford]

If I look at a 50 year old science book I will certainly need to cherry pick that which is and is not still true.
Pluto. Is a planet. Is not a planet. Is a planet. Is not a planet.

And nobody here will raise an eyebrow when science text books change in order to keep up with current truths.

Nor should they. According to science text books written before 1930, Pluto did not even exist. It would be absurd to take one of them as proof of the non-existence of Pluto, planet or not.

It would be far more absurd to take a book compiled while the Roman Empire was still kicking around as "current truth" with regards to a whole host of issues, yet that's what you're doing.

 

[Harry Bosch]

...Trying to use the Bible as a source for laws and standard of moral behavior is frigging stupid because you need to find reasons to discount and ignore large portions of it in order to cherry pick out the parts which...

If I look at a 50 year old science book I will certainly need to cherry pick that which is and is not still true.
Pluto. Is a planet. Is not a planet. Is a planet. Is not a planet.
Empiricism is the best.

And nobody here will raise an eyebrow when science text books change in order to keep up with current truths.

So why are folks straining at the goads over the idea that God would have unique laws in place for a selected group of people at a very unique time in their history?

It's a huge double standard especially since a lot of counter-apologetic bible skepticism is aimed directly at alleged bible contradictions related to obvious examples where God commands one thing here and something different there.

Eg. skeptics annotated bible quibbling and whining over clean versus unclean animals. (Leviticus)
...oh but Lion IRC didn't God declare that all of His creation was good? (Genesis)

Eg. skeptics annotated bible quibbling and whining over "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus)
...oh but Lion IRC why does God command killing? (Leviticus)

Notwithstanding any cherry picking or hermeneutics, or manuscript copying errors, or doctrinal disputes, there is NO disagreement among biblical theists that obeying God is the first most important starting point.

So even if Tom Sawyer just so happened to be right and I ought not to be eating shellfish and wearing clothes made from mixed threads, that in no way detracts from my emphatic belief that God's law ought to be obeyed.
I'm not altering my conviction that God is always right.

No Christian AFAICT says that God-given Mosaic laws were bad laws.

The big difference between science and religion is that science changes due to evidence. In science, theories are adaptable according to how the evidence is interpreted. In religion, the theory is fixed, but the evidence is changed in order to fit the theory. Your religious beliefs are the exact same going back 2000 years. But science is much more exciting because it's constantly changing and constantly debating. constantly

 

[Lion IRC]

Ah yes, the beauty of science. Correcting it's own mistakes.
But you know, I kind of expected a little better from repeatable empirical evidence.

The bible classified birds and bats together as winged creatures and the atheist bible errancy crowd goes berzerk - despite the fact that the word "mammal" wouldn't be invented for another couple of millennia. But those same anti-bible folks give Carl Linnaeus a hall pass.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ah yes, the beauty of science. Correcting it's own mistakes.
But you know, I kind of expected a little better from repeatable empirical evidence.

Because what, the well known infallibility of the human species? I suggest you fixing your expectations. Getting things right is hard.

The bible classified birds and bats together as winged creatures and the atheist bible errancy crowd goes berzerk - despite the fact that the word "mammal" wouldn't be invented for another couple of millennia. But those same anti-bible folks give Carl Linnaeus a hall pass.

What are you on about? Are you smoking something? Of course Linneaus gets a pass, and if you don't understand why you are fool.

All this debate would go away if Christians stopped with their bizarre insistence that the Bible is the infallible word of God. I say "debate". Its more like atheists and sensible Christians both pointing and laughing at Christian fundamentalist and laughing.

 

[Lion IRC]

I understand perfectly well why Carl Linneaus gets a hall pass.
Because hypocrites have double standards.

 

[Lion IRC]

I say something which should be a virtual truism when talking about Baconian science...

I kind of expected a little better from repeatable empirical evidence.

And DrZoidberg whimpers oh well gee Lion....

Getting things right is hard.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I understand perfectly well why Carl Linneaus gets a hall pass.
Because hypocrites have double standards.

Must be so confusing not understanding all those long words atheists keep using. If you don't know something, how about asking questions until you do? You're just coming across as a clown now.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

...Trying to use the Bible as a source for laws and standard of moral behavior is frigging stupid because you need to find reasons to discount and ignore large portions of it in order to cherry pick out the parts which...

If I look at a 50 year old science book I will certainly need to cherry pick that which is and is not still true.
Pluto. Is a planet. Is not a planet. Is a planet. Is not a planet.
Empiricism is the best.

And nobody here will raise an eyebrow when science text books change in order to keep up with current truths.

So why are folks straining at the goads over the idea that God would have unique laws in place for a selected group of people at a very unique time in their history?

It's a huge double standard especially since a lot of counter-apologetic bible skepticism is aimed directly at alleged bible contradictions related to obvious examples where God commands one thing here and something different there.

Eg. skeptics annotated bible quibbling and whining over clean versus unclean animals. (Leviticus)
...oh but Lion IRC didn't God declare that all of His creation was good? (Genesis)

Eg. skeptics annotated bible quibbling and whining over "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus)
...oh but Lion IRC why does God command killing? (Leviticus)

Notwithstanding any cherry picking or hermeneutics, or manuscript copying errors, or doctrinal disputes, there is NO disagreement among biblical theists that obeying God is the first most important starting point.

So even if Tom Sawyer just so happened to be right and I ought not to be eating shellfish and wearing clothes made from mixed threads, that in no way detracts from my emphatic belief that God's law ought to be obeyed.
I'm not altering my conviction that God is always right.

No Christian AFAICT says that God-given Mosaic laws were bad laws.

Yes, once again, that's the entire point that people are trying to make.

Atheists aren't the ones who are saying that Bible is based on infallible divine commands. We're told that by Christians. Then when we question this claim, we're told "Well, that part is fallible and comes from man instead of God, so you can ignore it".

If obeying God's law is the important thing but you get to decide which of God's laws you can break without needing to worry about it, then you're not really obeying God's laws. That's like saying you agree that you ought to obey criminal laws, but you're still going to mug people and not consider yourself a criminal.

Also, science never portrays itself as infallible. The fact that it constantly changes and updates itself based on new information is its greatest strength and the reason that it works so well and it is empiricism at its best. It's the Christians who are saying that things said thousands of years ago are the guidelines to use, not scientists.

We didn't tell you that the Bible should be the source of laws and moral behavior. You guys told us that and we're telling you that this claim of yours is silly.

 

[James Brown]

Hmm, yes. Carl Linnaeus and Jehovah. Both equally omniscient and infallible.

All right, I'll concede. It's hypocritical to criticize the authors of the Pentateuch for their science mistakes but give Linnaeus a pass. So let's do what we did with Linnaeus. Let's edit the Bible to excise those mistakes and update it with new information as it is discovered. Of course, we'll also have to excise the passages that forbid excising the Scriptures, but hey.

I wonder what other passages of the Bible will have to be redacted and revised now that we've entered the Scientific Age?