Maybe it would be good for science to make up new words to describe laws, etc

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Bible isn't a science manual. But nobody said it was.

You DID however say "A lot is being discovered by studying the texts and with new contexts and interpretations, the studies don't stop."

So the question remains: What has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years that has revolutionized life?

The KJV was first published in 1611. It only has 783,137 words, and it has been perhaps more thoroughly examined in the 408 years of its existence than any other text. How much can possibly be left to discover, that has not already been found?

Forget revolutionising life; What has been found in the Bible in the last fifty years, that wasn't well known for decades beforehand?

There was a whole list of things that were known in Biblical times and took science hundreds of years to catch up. For example, the Bible mentions the "springs of the deep" in the oceans and it wasn't until recently they found the underwater hydrothermal vents.

http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

2.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

3.
The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.


4.
When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

7.
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

Lets not forget moon dust, Arkansas and television.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Absolutely hilarious.

There was a whole list of things that were known in Biblical times and took science hundreds of years to catch up. For example, the Bible mentions the "springs of the deep" in the oceans and it wasn't until recently they found the underwater hydrothermal vents.

http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

2.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
I don't see any reference to "particles". Just a vague statement that god "poofed" everything into existence ("what can be seen was made out of what cannot be seen")

3.
The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.
Naturally, trial-and-error was an unknown concept until recently. People built floating vessels for thousands of years and never learned a thing. Then God gave them the specs. News flash: ancient people didn't know a lot of what we know, but they weren't morons.

4.
When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water. Again, the ancients weren't stupid.
Right, no one could figure out that washing in the same dirty water every day was less effective than using a fresh supply. God had to tell them.

7.
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
How hard is it for someone to stick his head underwater and see that the sea floor isn't flat?

21.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!
That's a reference to division of light and dark, not a prismatic effect.

So you've posted another pantload, misinterpreting some things, assuming people were too stupid to learn things, and couldn't even observe their surroundings. Then God gave everyone a "Matrix" upload, and stuff got done.

L.O.Freaking.L.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Absolutely hilarious.

So you've posted another pantload, misinterpreting some things, assuming people were too stupid to learn things, and couldn't even observe their surroundings. Then God gave everyone a "Matrix" upload, and stuff got done.

L.O.Freaking.L.

There is a difference between making an observation and experiencing an emotion. Religiously biased people have a quantifiable difficulty differentiating between these two experiences. This explains their religious inclinations from a scientific perspective.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Absolutely hilarious.

So you've posted another pantload, misinterpreting some things, assuming people were too stupid to learn things, and couldn't even observe their surroundings. Then God gave everyone a "Matrix" upload, and stuff got done.

L.O.Freaking.L.

There is a difference between making an observation and experiencing an emotion. Religiously biased people have a quantifiable difficulty differentiating between these two experiences. This explains their religious inclinations from a scientific perspective.

But in finding, say, a decent ratio for building ships, trial and error is sufficient. It's not like everyone was making circular canoes until Divine Revelation said, "Put a bow on that thing!"

Or the Bible verse that says blood is the source of life. Not a sign of supernatural dictation. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of opportunities to note that when someone runs out of snot or spit or piss, they're okay, but if all the blood leaks out they're not going to be terribly productive for the next few days.

 

[skepticalbip]

Absolutely hilarious.

So you've posted another pantload, misinterpreting some things, assuming people were too stupid to learn things, and couldn't even observe their surroundings. Then God gave everyone a "Matrix" upload, and stuff got done.

L.O.Freaking.L.

There is a difference between making an observation and experiencing an emotion. Religiously biased people have a quantifiable difficulty differentiating between these two experiences. This explains their religious inclinations from a scientific perspective.

But in finding, say, a decent ratio for building ships, trial and error is sufficient. It's not like everyone was making circular canoes until Divine Revelation said, "Put a bow on that thing!"

Or the Bible verse that says blood is the source of life. Not a sign of supernatural dictation. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of opportunities to note that when someone runs out of snot or spit or piss, they're okay, but if all the blood leaks out they're not going to be terribly productive for the next few days.

The ratio of length to width for the ark would be OK for a rowed or sailing boat but the ark was supposed to be completely unpowered. A large unpowered circular boat would handle rough seas better than the ark. The Sumerian story that the Noah myth was stolen from did have a circular boat. A modern ship at sea does pretty well in high seas as long as it has power and can keep its bow into the weather. If it loses power then it quickly gets turned abeam to the sea and is swamped. God fucked up in his instructions. He should have told Noah how to build an engine or at least told him to add a mast, sails, and a rudder. Or with no power then go with a circular boat.

ETA:
On second thought, I guess god could have told Noah how to make a sea anchor to throw out to keep the bow into the wind but I saw nothing in the story to indicate that he did. Apparently god didn't have much experience in boating.

 

[James Brown]

So God, in his infinite wisdom, told Noah about this supposed Golden Ratio for boats. He then instructed Noah to build a boat with that ratio, but with such absurd dimensions as to make it completely unseaworthy--in calm waters..

Even today in our modern scientific age, we can't build wooden boats of Ark-like dimensions unless we use iron bracing to keep them from bursting at the seams.

I simply go with what works. And what works is the healthy skepticism embodied in the scientific method. Believe me, if the Bible had ever been shown to be a rich source of scientific answers and enlightenment, we would be mining it daily for cosmic discovery.

--Neil Degrasse Tyson

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The ratio of length to width for the ark would be OK for a rowed or sailing boat but the ark was supposed to be completely unpowered. A large unpowered circular boat would handle rough seas better than the ark. The Sumerian story that the Noah myth was stolen from did have a circular boat. A modern ship at sea does pretty well in high seas as long as it has power and can keep its bow into the weather. If it loses power then it quickly gets turned abeam to the sea and is swamped. God fucked up in his instructions. He should have told Noah how to build an engine or at least told him to add a mast, sails, and a rudder. Or with no power then go with a circular boat.

ETA:
On second thought, I guess god could have told Noah how to make a sea anchor to throw out to keep the bow into the wind but I saw nothing in the story to indicate that he did. Apparently god didn't have much experience in boating.

You forget that the magic spaceman has magic powers.

What this thread has demonstrated so far is that we need better words and phrases for religious terms like god and religion. For god we could just capitalize woo into Woo. I tried it in the POA and it fits right in there.

 

[bilby]

nm

 

[steve_bank]

The bible is:

1 A creation myth, not unique. Many traditions have one. They generaly make the group appear unique and special.
2 A genealogy
3 A set of mythical stories of supernatural powers. The Ark as a weapon. Blowing down walls wit a her'mnMoses and the exodus.
4 An embellished history of glory of a minor group in the region who were repeatedly conquered and assimilated.
5 The NT accounts in the gospels also embellished. Tailored to make Jesus fit the old prophesies.

The bible is not:

1. An accurate historical account
2 Science in any way, shape, or form. It is supernatural.
3 While there are some historical correlations of Hebrew events, it is not a corroboration of supernatural events. Moses parting the water.

I do not see anything new to discover.

1 An ancient tribe claimed to be the chosen few of a god. Not really unique in history.
2 A set of moral and civil laws and rituals. Not unique either.
3 Accounts of glory and battles. Nor t unique.
4 Monotheism. Not unique.

We know the ancient Hebrews existed. Current Christianity is obsessed with mining the bible to twist it into modern context. Books and CDs on 'new' discoveries'. Books on new things are always pushed on TV and radio shows.

It is nothing new. What new means is somebody's interpretation and spin. Reading into the words with abandon. Ridiculous interpolations and extrapolations.

In Europe Christianity won out over Islam after years of conflict. It did not revolutionize anything. It provided a social glue and control mechanism for power in an age where the majority were illiterate and superstitious. The church told them what was right and wrong aiding in social order. Control by fear.

Throughout history religion has been a tool of state. Constantine saw the potential as emperor and promoted Christianity.

Rome always had a sate religion, it was considered essential for order.

Today we see religion used as a control in politics. Politicians invoke god as a conditioned response. Religion in the ruling powers was always about personal power.

 

[Half-Life]

Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect? Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!" So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

How do you find a true objective non-biased source?

 

[skepticalbip]

Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect? Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!" So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

How do you find a true objective non-biased source?

I haven't seen that, "Atheists always say, 'Christian sources are biased!'". What I see is questions such as, "what conformation is there for that?"

How is objective evidence found? By finding independent sources and/or archeological finds that tell the same story. For instance if we only had a story by a Macedonian historian that Alexander conquered Egypt then little credence would be given to it. But we not only have that claim but the story repeated by Egyptian scribes that describe being conquered by Alexander. Other than that, we have Egyptian records of Alexander having them build the city of Alexandria, ruins found, and Alexander's general, Ptolemy, left to rule Egypt as a Macedonian Pharaoh while Alexander moved on to expand his empire.

Another example is we had the Iliad that told of a Greek siege of the city of Troy... no credence was given to it until the ruins of Troy were uncovered and archeological evidence of a siege of that city by Greeks at the correct time period was found.

We also have stories of the destruction of a great city of Atlantis but that is all that we have so it is considered to be myth.

Much of what Christians want to offer as evidence is an unknown author's claims decades after the supposed event from a few thousand kilometers away.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect?

I for one expect that you're going to quote the bible as evidence for the bible. That is what i see the most of.
Or, Lumpy's practice of making claims he has absolutely no support for.
But, hey, if you have objective evidence of a biblical claim, you a re welcome to pony up.
Who knows, it might even stand up to scrutiny.

Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!"

No, no we don't scream 'bias' just because a Christain brings it up. But if it's a PRATT, it won't take us long to evaluate it.
To see if you really have a source or if it's a presuppositionist claim made for the 1001st time.

So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

Then you should be able to identify the bias, right?
You are welcome to point out errors in our arguments. Really. We want to find the truth. YOU guys tend to want to find YOUR truth, thus we see things like Statements of Faith where a researcher promises that no matter what he discovers, he won't publish any findings that argue with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Do you know of any Atheist such statenents? Where one cannot get funding, or submit work for publishing unless it tallies with a godless universe?

How do you find a true objective non-biased source?

Peer review. If you argument or evidence has any weakness, it's like chumming the water, and the sharks start circling....

 

[bilby]

Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect? Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!" So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

How do you find a true objective non-biased source?

There's an entire branch of philosophy, called 'epistemology', that deals with this fundamental question.

That you are completely ignorant of its very existence is totally unsuprising.

That you assume that the answer must be sufficiently simple to be easily summarised in a forum post is also no surprise.

Reality isn't simple. Epistemology is well worth studying - it's not easy or necessarily quick, but it is fundamental. As you so ineloquently point out, if you don't know how you know things, then you don't really know anything at all.

Hasn't it occurred to you that you might be wrong? If you don't know how other people come to understand which statements are right, which are wrong, and how to determine the difference, then how can you expect to be able to do so yourself?

Mere confidence is a poor guide to correctness. Trusting people on the basis of how confident they appear is a dreadful epistemology. But it's one that is very common amongst non-thinkers. Indeed, the entire business model of Fox News, and of the modern Republican Party depends upon it.

 

[Half-Life]

Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect? Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!" So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

How do you find a true objective non-biased source?

There's an entire branch of philosophy, called 'epistemology', that deals with this fundamental question.

That you are completely ignorant of its very existence is totally unsuprising.

That you assume that the answer must be sufficiently simple to be easily summarised in a forum post is also no surprise.

Reality isn't simple. Epistemology is well worth studying - it's not easy or necessarily quick, but it is fundamental. As you so ineloquently point out, if you don't know how you know things, then you don't really know anything at all.

Hasn't it occurred to you that you might be wrong? If you don't know how other people come to understand which statements are right, which are wrong, and how to determine the difference, then how can you expect to be able to do so yourself?

Mere confidence is a poor guide to correctness. Trusting people on the basis of how confident they appear is a dreadful epistemology. But it's one that is very common amongst non-thinkers. Indeed, the entire business model of Fox News, and of the modern Republican Party depends upon it.

Because a lot of sources are biased to the left. The left pushes diversity so of course all academic studies are pressured into only publishing things that AGREE with diversity. The stuff that disagrees with it, like race and IQ studies, get thrown out, not because they are wrong, but because they disagree with the diversity agenda. If that isn't biased, I don't know what is. There was a college that was going to do a race and IQ lecture and students were boycotting it. Why? Because it disagreed with their feelings. They couldn't even LISTEN to the lecture. They had to stomp it out like a fire because they are too scared of their feelings being hurt. They only agree with facts that agree with their feelings.

Also a lot of people seem to think "rational wiki" is a great source. But why? Because it says "rational" in the title? Is that all it takes for NPC's to agree on a source?

 

[Half-Life]

I for one expect that you're going to quote the bible as evidence for the bible. That is what i see the most of.
Or, Lumpy's practice of making claims he has absolutely no support for.
But, hey, if you have objective evidence of a biblical claim, you a re welcome to pony up.
Who knows, it might even stand up to scrutiny. No, no we don't scream 'bias' just because a Christain brings it up. But if it's a PRATT, it won't take us long to evaluate it.
To see if you really have a source or if it's a presuppositionist claim made for the 1001st time.

So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

Then you should be able to identify the bias, right?
You are welcome to point out errors in our arguments. Really. We want to find the truth. YOU guys tend to want to find YOUR truth, thus we see things like Statements of Faith where a researcher promises that no matter what he discovers, he won't publish any findings that argue with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Do you know of any Atheist such statenents? Where one cannot get funding, or submit work for publishing unless it tallies with a godless universe?

How do you find a true objective non-biased source?

Peer review. If you argument or evidence has any weakness, it's like chumming the water, and the sharks start circling....

I can't tell you how many times over the years I was linked to ATHEIST WEBSITES as evidence of ATHEISM. How is that unbiased? I show you Christian sites that say Christianity is true. You laugh and say "bias!" So, why can't you do the same for atheist websites?

 

[bilby]

Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect? Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!" So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

How do you find a true objective non-biased source?

There's an entire branch of philosophy, called 'epistemology', that deals with this fundamental question.

That you are completely ignorant of its very existence is totally unsuprising.

That you assume that the answer must be sufficiently simple to be easily summarised in a forum post is also no surprise.

Reality isn't simple. Epistemology is well worth studying - it's not easy or necessarily quick, but it is fundamental. As you so ineloquently point out, if you don't know how you know things, then you don't really know anything at all.

Hasn't it occurred to you that you might be wrong? If you don't know how other people come to understand which statements are right, which are wrong, and how to determine the difference, then how can you expect to be able to do so yourself?

Mere confidence is a poor guide to correctness. Trusting people on the basis of how confident they appear is a dreadful epistemology. But it's one that is very common amongst non-thinkers. Indeed, the entire business model of Fox News, and of the modern Republican Party depends upon it.

Because a lot of sources are biased to the left. The left pushes diversity so of course all academic studies are pressured into only publishing things that AGREE with diversity. The stuff that disagrees with it, like race and IQ studies, get thrown out, not because they are wrong, but because they disagree with the diversity agenda. If that isn't biased, I don't know what is. There was a college that was going to do a race and IQ lecture and students were boycotting it. Why? Because it disagreed with their feelings. They couldn't even LISTEN to the lecture. They had to stomp it out like a fire because they are too scared of their feelings being hurt. They only agree with facts that agree with their feelings.

Also a lot of people seem to think "rational wiki" is a great source. But why? Because it says "rational" in the title? Is that all it takes for NPC's to agree on a source?

I refer you back to the post to which this is supposedly a response.

Did you even read what I wrote? Because your response seems to have fuck-all relationship to my post.

I only asked two questions in my post:
a) "Hasn't it occurred to you that you might be wrong?" and
b) "If you don't know how other people come to understand which statements are right, which are wrong, and how to determine the difference, then how can you expect to be able to do so yourself?"

"Because a lot of sources are biased to the left" isn't a coherent answer to either question, and leaves me wondering what question you think I asked or implied, or you think I should have asked or implied, for which that response is coherent.

If you can't or won't read and respond coherently to other people's posts, then perhaps discussion boards are too advanced a medium for you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I can't tell you how many times over the years I was linked to ATHEIST WEBSITES as evidence of ATHEISM. How is that unbiased?

I would have to kniw tye full context. Because you are almost pathologically unable to predict, or explain, the behavior of smart people.
I suspect you asked a question and the answer was pretty well explained on someone's site.
OR you asked a biology question and were linked to an evolution site and interpreted it as atheistic because that fits your limited understanding.

But i just really doubt that anyone used ATHEISM as evidence for ATHEISM. Doesn't make sense, does it?
"I don't believe in gods."
"Realky? Why not?"
"Because of Atheism!"
So, well, citation needed.

I show you Christian sites that say Christianity is true. You laugh and say "bias!"

Can you point to where this exact exchange has taken place on this forum? Because i think you're talking shit.
Because if you post to a site thst just says Xianity is true, we're going to ask for some supporting evidence for their statement

So, why can't you do the same for atheist websites?

i don't often get linked to atheist sites when i ask for someone's reason they are atheist. Far more likely, i get linked to a Christain site.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I can't tell you how many times over the years I was linked to ATHEIST WEBSITES as evidence of ATHEISM. How is that unbiased? I show you Christian sites that say Christianity is true. You laugh and say "bias!" So, why can't you do the same for atheist websites?

Hey, so when you suggested that the bible supported a nti-gay bigotry, Halfie, did FUCKING ANYONE 'scream' Bias!
Or did we ask you to support your claim?
The claim you still haven't supported? Never once finding that verse where Jesus used 'homosexual' and 'sin' in connection to each other?
I will stipulate laughing, but only at your utter failure, not your claim.

 

[Learner]

Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect? Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!" So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

How do you find a true objective non-biased source?

Sholars / historians who are also believers don't seem to be taken seriously as the non-believer versions for some reason (anyone can be biased). We know they (theists) have the ability and credentials, for example; Bart Erhman was trained by a Theist!

 

[Learner]

The bible is in my opinion:

1 A creation myth, not unique. Many traditions have one. They generaly make the group appear unique and special.
2 A genealogy
3 A set of mythical stories of supernatural powers. The Ark as a weapon. Blowing down walls wit a her'mnMoses and the exodus.
4 An embellished history of glory of a minor group in the region who were repeatedly conquered and assimilated.
5 The NT accounts in the gospels also embellished. Tailored to make Jesus fit the old prophesies.

FIFY

The bible is not in my opinion:

1. An accurate historical account
2 Science in any way, shape, or form. It is supernatural.
3 While there are some historical correlations of Hebrew events, it is not a corroboration of supernatural events. Moses parting the water.

I do not see anything new to discover.

1 An ancient tribe claimed to be the chosen few of a god. Not really unique in history.
2 A set of moral and civil laws and rituals. Not unique either.
3 Accounts of glory and battles. Nor t unique.
4 Monotheism. Not unique.

Not unique but the origin ? Who do see came first with the idea of montheism? Who plagiarised who? Even theists know the (similar) concept is not unique.