jdonn Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Most of those quotes do not mean what you are trying to use them to support. They are along the lines ofThe universe was either 'intelligently designed' or turned out this way by coincidence.(a statement with which technically I agree) or There are scientists or other people out there who believe in intelligent designe even though they won't admit it. (uh, isn't the point for you to show who those people are, not take a tally of how many others believe they exist?) or It's very difficult to explain the origins of the universe unless it was intelligently designed. (obviously a far cry from believing in intelligent design) The only quotes I can see that support your belief are the first and last ones. The first person clearly believes in god (it took about 15 seconds for me to find out he was a devout Jew). Speaking about the last one, that professor claims there is very powerful evidence, although he doesn't (in that quote) say what that is beyond that it "seems" that way to him. Pardon me for being hardly convinced. Your interpretation of these quotes as supporting your belief is what Mike is talking about when he refers to your 'blindness'. You will see whatever you want to see. On the other hand, would you like to try to find quotes from scientists who believe in evolution? I bet there are a lot more and that they are a lot more definitive... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 The first person clearly believes in god (it took about 15 seconds for me to find out he was a devout Jew). Does that undercut the credibility of his position, in your view? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 The first person clearly believes in god (it took about 15 seconds for me to find out he was a devout Jew). Does that undercut the credibility of his position, in your view? That isn't why I made that statement. I was trying to concede to lukewarm "The first person clearly agrees with you." Just to show I had bothered to take a moment to check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Speaking about the last one, that professor claims there is very powerful evidence, although he doesn't (in that quote) say what that is beyond that it "seems" that way to him. Pardon me for being hardly convinced. Your interpretation of these quotes as supporting your belief is what Mike is talking about when he refers to your 'blindness'. You will see whatever you want to see. On the other hand, would you like to try to find quotes from scientists who believe in evolution? I bet there are a lot more and that they are a lot more definitive... yes, he does claim that... you claim, i take it, the opposite... as for evolution, there are many scientists who believe in evolution and in the possibility of design... i'm glad you don't provide quotes from those who deny the possibility of design seeing as how your interpretation of those quotes would be proof of your "blindness" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Speaking about the last one, that professor claims there is very powerful evidence, although he doesn't (in that quote) say what that is beyond that it "seems" that way to him. Pardon me for being hardly convinced. Your interpretation of these quotes as supporting your belief is what Mike is talking about when he refers to your 'blindness'. You will see whatever you want to see. On the other hand, would you like to try to find quotes from scientists who believe in evolution? I bet there are a lot more and that they are a lot more definitive... yes, he does claim that... you claim, i take it, the opposite... as for evolution, there are many scientists who believe in evolution and in the possibility of design... i'm glad you don't provide quotes from those who deny the possibility of design seeing as how your interpretation of those quotes would be proof of your "blindness" It's funny. You accuse us of falacious reasoning, and then seem to reason that anyone who disagrees with you must be guilty of whatever they accuse you of. Um, hello? It makes it very easy for you to ignore that you picked a bunch of quotes that do not support you at all. Do you want me to find a bunch? Frankly I don't want to bother because I hoped we could very easily agree they exist. But say the word and I will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 as for evolution, there are many scientists who believe in evolution and in the possibility of design... I'd be curious how many of them have any relevant publications in peer reviewed journals... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASkolnick Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Because I like to stir up the pot. What was actually the purpose of this post? It seems to me this is the perfect case of entrapment. Hrothgar did not care what people's position on Noah's Ark actually was since he already had made his mind up about certain people. There is really no reason that this was posted unless the purpose is to pick a fight with Luke Warm with the Religion versus Science argument. In which case, it worked. Some people tend to lean more towards science. Some people tend to lean more towards faith. There has been many documented cases where someones "belief" or "will" helped them get through many different types of crises. There have been many documented cases where people have used science to get through different types of crises. And in some cases, these things are not butting heads, but are intertwined into a person's being. We could also challenge whether a supreme being(s) actually exists or not? The answer itself may not even be important, it may be more important that the belief itself exists. Maybe because I have that belief, I contribute to society in a much better way, more charitable, help others etc. Maybe if I believe the story of the Ark is true, I have a better understanding of how we should treat each other. I personally believe the stories themselves are to set guidelines or standards of how people should act, the actual stories may have been embellished to make a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I personally believe the stories themselves are to set guidelines or standards of how people should act, the actual stories may have been embellished to make a point. Yes, the value of the stories is in the lessons one can draw from them, not their literal truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 What was actually the purpose of this post? It seems to me this is the perfect case of entrapment. Hrothgar did not care what people's position on Noah's Ark actually was since he already had made his mind up about certain people. There is really no reason that this was posted unless the purpose is to pick a fight with Luke Warm with the Religion versus Science argument. Close, but no cigar... I posted the original question for a couple reasons 1. I was curious whether anyone would admit to believing in Noah's ark. 40 days and 40 nights of rainThe great floodtwo of every kind of animal 2. If anyone did admit to such a belief, I was planning on using this the next time a debate regarding evolution, etc cropped up. There was (obviously) a chance of an argument breaking out in this thread. However, I wouldn't cite this as a primary goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I personally believe the stories themselves are to set guidelines or standards of how people should act, the actual stories may have been embellished to make a point. Yes, the value of the stories is in the lessons one can draw from them, not their literal truth. Is this true of the stories of Jesus, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Why restrict it to evolutionary debates?! This would be good in the MSC. "Bob likes 5♠, but he believes in Noah's Ark." Or "10 voted to pass, while only 8 voted to double, but we're scoring double as 100 and pass as 80, because all 8 doublers are evolutionists, while 6 of the 10 passers believe in intelligent design." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Because I like to stir up the pot. What was actually the purpose of this post? It seems to me this is the perfect case of entrapment. Hrothgar did not care what people's position on Noah's Ark actually was since he already had made his mind up about certain people. There is really no reason that this was posted unless the purpose is to pick a fight with Luke Warm with the Religion versus Science argument. In which case, it worked. Some people tend to lean more towards science. Some people tend to lean more towards faith. There has been many documented cases where someones "belief" or "will" helped them get through many different types of crises. There have been many documented cases where people have used science to get through different types of crises. And in some cases, these things are not butting heads, but are intertwined into a person's being. We could also challenge whether a supreme being(s) actually exists or not? The answer itself may not even be important, it may be more important that the belief itself exists. Maybe because I have that belief, I contribute to society in a much better way, more charitable, help others etc. Maybe if I believe the story of the Ark is true, I have a better understanding of how we should treat each other. I personally believe the stories themselves are to set guidelines or standards of how people should act, the actual stories may have been embellished to make a point.I like your post, but find it ultimately unpersuasive, which I doubt will bother you very much :) I agree that many people have apparently done very good things while professing that they did so because of the teachings of their faith. However, I am sure that all would agree that many people have done incredibly ugly, cruel things while professing that they did so because of the teachings of their faith. There may even be some overlap, in some instances, between the two groups. And we can say this about the adherents of every major religion with the possible exception of Bhuddism. Of course, I agree that we can say the same thing about agnostics and atheists, and nothing I have ever written should be viewed as claiming any special moral status for agnostics and atheists. My point is that my view is that we can inculcate what we see as good moral values without the need to invoke superstitious nonsense. And the use of superstition, and the fear of god, as a tool to compell 'moral' behaviour has a huge built-in cost. The anthropological role of organized religion as a major power structure, and its role in fomenting hatred, war, racism and other forms of intolerance is known to all who have even a passing interest in history. We cannot but see the pernicious effects of belief everywhere we look in the world. Maybe a secular world would be as bad, but it is difficult to see how it could be worse. Frankly, as an atheist, i find it insulting to read, as we see so often in these 'discussions', the hidden (and sometimes not so hidden) assertion that we need religion in order to be moral. The worst charlatans and fraudsters I have ever met wore their christian beliefs openly. Does that cause me to say that religious belief leads to fraud? No, anymore than the fact that most bigots of all persuasions find justifications for their particular hatreds in their holy books make me think that most believers are bigots. I am morally certain that there are agnostic and atheistic bigots, frauds, charlatans. The point being that I see nothing in human nature, to the extent that I have read in the field, that suggests any need for religion in order that a child or adult be imbued with what we see as good moral values. Of course, organized religion is driven to assert the contrary... precisely because it needs as many weapons as it can to continue its oppressive control of the societies in which it operates. The myth of Noah's Ark, with its punitive god and his vindictive, cruel and barbaric slaughter of almost all life on the planet, is a classic device, in the context of the exertion of control through fear...like much of the Old Testament. I agree, and have previously posted, that this entire thread seemed designed to lure Lukewarm into restating his beliefs, and I have tried to avoid responding to Jimmy... but I enjoy the other posts to which I have responded :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I personally believe the stories themselves are to set guidelines or standards of how people should act, the actual stories may have been embellished to make a point. Yes, the value of the stories is in the lessons one can draw from them, not their literal truth. Is this true of the stories of Jesus, too? Well sure. Take the story of five loaves and two fish feeding a crowd of thousands. Setting aside all the allegorical and mystical interpretations put forward by theologians over the centuries, this is a nice story about the importance of sharing. A young boy offers up the little he has, which inspires all the adults around him to bring out the food they had hidden. Surely this story teaches a moral lesson much richer than that Jesus simply performed a cheap magic trick, with or without god's help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Surely this story teaches a moral lesson much richer than that Jesus simply performed a cheap magic trick, with or without god's help. That's only "surely" true if you accept a non-Christian worldview as your starting point. If, on the other hand, your worldview includes, for instance, the idea that only through accepting Jesus as a divine savior can you be granted eternal salvation, then if the story leads one to believe "Wow, this Jesus guy really IS something more than just human," and as a result gains that salvation, that's probably more important than sharing your toys for the [relatively] insignificant 70 or so years that you're here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Surely this story teaches a moral lesson much richer than that Jesus simply performed a cheap magic trick, with or without god's help. That's only "surely" true if you accept a non-Christian worldview as your starting point. If, on the other hand, your worldview includes, for instance, the idea that only through accepting Jesus as a divine savior can you be granted eternal salvation, then if the story leads one to believe "Wow, this Jesus guy really IS something more than just human," and as a result gains that salvation, that's probably more important than sharing your toys for the [relatively] insignificant 70 or so years that you're here. This all goes back to the idea about the burden of proof being on the positive rather than the negative. What sense can it make to start with a worldview that someone is a divine savior? It makes much more sense to start with a worldview that no (particular) person is a divine savior, and only change your mind when sufficient evidence is presented that someone is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Speaking about the last one, that professor claims there is very powerful evidence, although he doesn't (in that quote) say what that is beyond that it "seems" that way to him. Pardon me for being hardly convinced. Your interpretation of these quotes as supporting your belief is what Mike is talking about when he refers to your 'blindness'. You will see whatever you want to see. On the other hand, would you like to try to find quotes from scientists who believe in evolution? I bet there are a lot more and that they are a lot more definitive... yes, he does claim that... you claim, i take it, the opposite... as for evolution, there are many scientists who believe in evolution and in the possibility of design... i'm glad you don't provide quotes from those who deny the possibility of design seeing as how your interpretation of those quotes would be proof of your "blindness" It's funny. You accuse us of falacious reasoning, and then seem to reason that anyone who disagrees with you must be guilty of whatever they accuse you of. Um, hello? It makes it very easy for you to ignore that you picked a bunch of quotes that do not support you at all. Do you want me to find a bunch? Frankly I don't want to bother because I hoped we could very easily agree they exist. But say the word and I will. you again miss the point... the quotes were meant as an answer to your (i think it was you) 'preponderance of the evidence' remark... you're a smart guy, but some of those who i quoted have a smattering of intelligence also, and some of them don't seem to be as sure as you are about this 'preponderance' thing... they weren't meant to support what i believe, merely to show that things aren't always as simple as you might want to think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'm not missing the point. Your argument is that a few smart people agree with you therefore your opinion is justified (or at least is not clearly unjustified as you perceive me to believe), or something like that if you don't agree with my exact wording. I do not agree that such a guideline is enough. If you really wanted to dispute the comment you are disputing, you wouldn't post a bunch of quotes. You would post some _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (I'll let you fill in the blank). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Surely this story teaches a moral lesson much richer than that Jesus simply performed a cheap magic trick, with or without god's help. That's only "surely" true if you accept a non-Christian worldview as your starting point. If, on the other hand, your worldview includes, for instance, the idea that only through accepting Jesus as a divine savior can you be granted eternal salvation, then if the story leads one to believe "Wow, this Jesus guy really IS something more than just human," and as a result gains that salvation, that's probably more important than sharing your toys for the [relatively] insignificant 70 or so years that you're here. This all goes back to the idea about the burden of proof being on the positive rather than the negative. What sense can it make to start with a worldview that someone is a divine savior? It makes much more sense to start with a worldview that no (particular) person is a divine savior, and only change your mind when sufficient evidence is presented that someone is. I think it's a separate issue, more specifically the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion, or "begging the question." The assertion that the allegorical lesson in Biblical stories is "more important" than their literal meanings is, of course, true...if you evaluate it from the perspective that the literal meanings aren't true. Whether or not you should accept Biblical stories as true is incidental to the point; either way, the point is that the claim that the symbolic meaning is "more important" is simply at heart a restatement of the position that the symbolic meaning is all there is. I think that the stories themselves do go directly to your point. If you (2,000 or so years ago) heard that Jesus was the son of God and had miraculous powers, you'd probably say that doesn't comport with your worldview, and (correctly) point out that the burden of proof was on anyone asserting that to be true. So then you see (or hear about) him walking on water, or healing lepers by touch, and you choose whether or not to find that to be compelling evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Surely this story teaches a moral lesson much richer than that Jesus simply performed a cheap magic trick, with or without god's help. That's only "surely" true if you accept a non-Christian worldview as your starting point. If, on the other hand, your worldview includes, for instance, the idea that only through accepting Jesus as a divine savior can you be granted eternal salvation, then if the story leads one to believe "Wow, this Jesus guy really IS something more than just human," and as a result gains that salvation, that's probably more important than sharing your toys for the [relatively] insignificant 70 or so years that you're here. Actually many Christians, including (especially) clergy, do share my view on this and the other "miracles" performed by Jesus. People who wish to apply Jesus' teachings to their own lives look to the lessons they find in the new testament. The magic tricks are just a distraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Actually many Christians, including (especially) clergy, do share my view on this and the other "miracles" performed by Jesus. People who wish to apply Jesus' teachings to their own lives look to the lessons they find in the new testament. The magic tricks are just a distraction. I can certainly see that for those who are already Christians and who wish to apply the teachings to their lives, but I can't believe that many clergy find it more important than the question of nonbelievers first accepting Jesus and becoming saved. Not being a Christian myself, that involves a bit of speculation; however, I do have good friends who are Christians, and I'm pretty confident in speaking for them at least as far as opining that the most important question, by far, is to become "saved," or "born again," or (insert your favorite phrase). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I can certainly see that for those who are already Christians and who wish to apply the teachings to their lives, but I can't believe that many clergy find it more important than the question of nonbelievers first accepting Jesus and becoming saved. I find this astonishing, it makes me wonder whether- your assessment is very wrong- my assessment is very wrong- things are very different where you live from where I live I would say that only jehova's witnesses and similar extremists emphasize salvation through belief. The mainstream either doesn´t believe in salvation at all, or think everyone gets saved, or think that everyone who lives a moral life will be saved. Surely it would take a sick soul to say that everyone who has the misfortune of being born in a part of the world where Jesus is not known, is doomed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Actually many Christians, including (especially) clergy, do share my view on this and the other "miracles" performed by Jesus. People who wish to apply Jesus' teachings to their own lives look to the lessons they find in the new testament. The magic tricks are just a distraction. I can certainly see that for those who are already Christians and who wish to apply the teachings to their lives, but I can't believe that many clergy find it more important than the question of nonbelievers first accepting Jesus and becoming saved. Not being a Christian myself, that involves a bit of speculation; however, I do have good friends who are Christians, and I'm pretty confident in speaking for them at least as far as opining that the most important question, by far, is to become "saved," or "born again," or (insert your favorite phrase). You're right about the "selling" aspect of the "miracles" described in the new testament. Most of them are versions of old testament miracles rewritten to show Jesus as having even more powerful magic than his forebears. In fact, the loaves and fishes story has the secondary goal of demonstrating that Jesus had more powerful magic than Elisha, who needed 20 loaves to feed 100 hungry men (2 Kings 4:42-44). In my experience, though, educated Christians tend to look beyond the obvious hype and focus on the real messages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 You're right about the "selling" aspect of the "miracles" described in the new testament. Most of them are versions of old testament miracles rewritten to show Jesus as having even more powerful magic than his forebears. In fact, the loaves and fishes story has the secondary goal of demonstrating that Jesus had more powerful magic than Elisha, who needed 20 loaves to feed 100 hungry men (2 Kings 4:42-44). In my experience, though, educated Christians tend to look beyond the obvious hype and focus on the real messages. I think that I've phrase this part of the sub-thread poorly, and I apologize to the extent that I've sort of hijacked and criticized a point you were making. I do agree with your point about the relative importance of the literal stories themselves vs. the lessons to be taken from them; I just feel that I should acknowledge that the position is very likely colored by the fact that I don't believe the stories themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I would say that only jehova's witnesses and similar extremists emphasize salvation through belief. The mainstream either doesn´t believe in salvation at all, or think everyone gets saved, or think that everyone who lives a moral life will be saved. Surely it would take a sick soul to say that everyone who has the misfortune of being born in a part of the world where Jesus is not known, is doomed. We do have more Christian extremists here, I think, especially among the less educated. However, I have met some (fringe) European Lutherans and Roman Catholics who also find comfort in some of the same extreme beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Is it "extreme" among Christians (in the USA, at least) to believe in salvation through faith? I thought that was pretty much tenet #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.