JackC

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1240492006 Eliminating Saddam Hussein and the Taliban had taken out Iran's main regional rivals. ... The Chatham House report goes on to say: "There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East." http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=315 No shit Sherlock

It's amazing, a bit of arm waving and a lot of hot air can put a glossy coat on any kind of atrocity. I could find that quite distasteful if I thought about it.

One thing this planet is not short of is humans. 1 billion in 1804 2 billion in 1927 (123 years later) 3 billion in 1960 ( 33 years later) 4 billion in 1974 ( 14 years later) 5 billion in 1987 ( 13 years later) 6 billion in 1999 ( 12 years later) Until we address this fundamental problem everything else we do, in the long run, is futile.

So if the literal angle is out, what does this allegory teach you? How do you know which bits of the Bible are allegory and which aren't? It all seems a bit ad hoc to me.

If Genesis isn't the story of the creation of the universe, then what is it? I don't understand your point of view at all.

+1

C'est la vie.

If I can't use a dictionary, how do I know what the words mean? Do I just guess? Make it up as I go along? Take the word "good" (having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified). Is Jackson Pollock a "good" artist? I need to know what specified thing "good" relates to. The question is incomplete and the only way I can answer it is to guess at by what sense you mean "good". Bullshit. The bible clearly states that the universe was created in 6 days which is a (falsifiable) claim about the origins of the universe. Physics books do not tell you to kill hundreds of thousands of people. They do not advise you to do anything, they merely describe the laws of nature. What? You mean the 1776 anti-monarchical treatise written by Thomas Paine encouraging revolution and colonial independence? or do you mean beliefs or propositions that seem, to most people, to be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge. These beliefs and propositions are sometimes developed after having studied, or conducted, empirical research. Wouldn't part of this common sense include logic? Apparently, not in Billvon's common sense. I can separate the lessons from the crap but I think that the crap is not due to "translation errors" or "misquotes" but simply because it's crap. Perhaps this often misunderstood, mis-quoted and (questionably) translated text is so difficult to understand because it's badly written garbage? For an omnipotent being, his writing-to-his-audience skills are rubbish. I would submit that the bible is so badly written and incoherent that nobody could possibly understand it in it's entirety. And now I must appologise since I used both logic and a dictionary to forulate this response, rendering it null and void.

Except I don't need to define my own terms. I can use the ones already defined in a standard reference book that contains words alphabetically arranged along with information about their form, pronunciation, functions, etymologies and meanings. Part of what it teaches you is that the world was created in 144 hours. It also teaches you that snakes and donkeys talk, the earth is flat, bats are birds and a whole host of other gibberish. Granted there is some good stuff about other cheeks and motes in peoples eyes but my point is that you have to apply a major BS filter to the bible to turn it into a suitable learning tool. What tools do I use to sift out the crap from the useful stuff if I can't use logic as one of them? From what you say, it's absolutely fine to take away from the bible whatever you want, or in your words, "whatever works for you". Even if it is that stoning adulterers and gays to death is acceptable behaviour, that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that your great mission is to get others to believe the same crap you do. I disagree.

Logic is a tool as we have both agreed. If I want to use logic to prove that Jackson Pollock is a good artist, I have to define what I mean by good. Good in what sense? Using my standard of good, Jackson Pollock doesn't fit. Logic can then you from A to B but only if you know what A and B are. If I want to prove Martin Luther King was "good" and Genghis Khan was "bad" we need to define good and bad. Logically you then compare what you want to test against your standard and voila... But you know all this. So why can't I use logic to study the bible? I define what my standards are, do the comparison and get my answer. What is wrong with that? Why is the bible exempt from scrutiny in this way? Basically, as I understand your argument, you're saying that the bible is comparable to art and just like art, I can either choose to like it or not. The bible is then as significant as either the Mona Lisa or a toothpaste advert depending on your personal preference.

Only for sufficiently large values of 2.

Well, the universe is the set containing "all things", and since time is "a thing" it must therefore be inculded in the set. In reality though, since we can't possibly know anything about what happened before everything existed, it's a moot point. Either way, questions relating to "before the big bang" are still meaningless.

So lets see where you can go with this. What you're saying is when you use logic to examine the bible, it makes no sense so therefore you can't use logic to examine the bible, logic is the wrong tool. If you can't use logic when discussing the bible, then by definition that must mean the bible is illogical and its a given that illogical things don't make sense. So which ever way you look at it, the bible makes no sense. Have I just argued myself in a circle?

How would you know the script related to historical fact? Because it said so? War of the Worlds did that too. That's because we do have good reason for our skepticism. The god hypothesis explains nothing and makes zero sense. I'd like to see some of this evidence. Where is the spiritual aspect to seeking the truth in calculus? I don't need to meditate in order to integrate. What the hell is a "spiritual aspect" anyway? It's just another meaningless phrase that you can't define. If you can't define it, how can I be expected to know what you're talking about?

That's the point. You know Star Trek is fiction because you can verify it's fictional nature by referencing something outside the script. You could talk to the actors and the writers and go to the studio where it is filmed. All of this would prove that it's just a story. But if the script is all you had and it made no reference to it's fictional nature, you wouldn't be able to tell. It could be fact, it could be fiction how would you know? You certainly can't use the script as evidence that the script is true. So it is with the bible, you can't verify it against anything else because the writers, actors and stages are long since gone. All external reference has vanished and all you have is a copy of a translation of an edited version of the script. From that, you can't tell what it was meant to be. I don't understand god. The bible is utter gibberish and the entire concept makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. No matter which way I look at it, it just doesn't add up. That's why I don't believe any of it.

Depends on the person. To me a priest is useless but a doctor could come in handy at the wake if great aunt Maude gets a dose of the vapours. Hey play fair, either both groups disappear completely as do their entire works or they both just go on strike for a bit.

An example to illustrate my point. Many different authors are responsible for Star Trek episodes. They all agree to such an extent that Klingon is now a language, the federation has a bona fide history and we have schematics of the starship Enterprise. Ergo, Star Trek is the Truth (tm). See how rediculous this is? The bible is not objective truth. It's hearsay and conjecture. My own internal bullshit-o-meter, logic, deductive reasoning, the laws of nature, and apply all that and more to the claims made by religious folk. That sort of thing.

As a scientist, I'll just say that since time is thought to have started with the Big Bang, there was no before to think about. It's a meaningless question. Sorry but I do not understand the statement "a human spirit that transcends consciousness". What does it mean?

Quoting scripture is of no use when trying to defend why you beleive that scripture. All you're saying is "I beleive the bible because the bible tells me to believe it". It's begging the question because the proposition to be proved is assumed in the premise. If you do not wish to be called for using such falacies, stop using them.

If you want a meaningful discussion about this or any other subject, you have to carefully define what you mean by those terms. Overly wide definitions (essentially the same as no definition at all) do more to inhibit understanding than enahance it.

Bill according to your definition of "truth", any philosophy you care to concoct no matter how wild and wacky can be called "true". Chistianity is just as "true" as days-of-our-lives-ism which is just as "true" as pink-invisible-unicorn-ism etc. The word "true" or "truth" ceases to have meaning since everything is now "true". As a result, I'm forced to admit that I have no idea what you're talking about.

How should I know, I wasn't there. I'm getting on a bit but I'm not that old!!! But seriously, you've got a bunch of bronze age goat herders all babbling incoherently about some entity that makes no logical sense. What is more likely? 1. That this logically incoherent, unphysical entity that doesn't conform to the known laws of the universe and for which there are no known examples; actually exists or 2. it was made up story by humans who are well known to be gullible, manipulative, lying, meglomaniac fantasists to try to control and direct their society for some reason (even if the intentions were good and they actually believed their own gibberish)? On balance of probability alone, the possibility of 1 is so vanishingly small compared to 2 that to call it insignificant would be an exageration. Plus, if 1 is false and 2 is true, the bible makes complete sense. So, are you able to even consider the possibility that perhaps the bible is not the word of god? No? Didn't think so.

ie wishfull thinking. Rubbish. That is not faith, thousands of uneventful jumps are undertaken each year. This is sufficient evidence to suggest that there is a good chance my canopy will open when requested. But we all know perfectly well what the odds are for each jump. We know and accept the risks and that there is a chance that sooner or later you or someone you know will run out of luck. It's not faith, it's fact. I understood the passage the same way Kallend did. Is it possible that it's you who are looking at it through god goggles and not understanding it? Here's another one for you open minded christians out there. Are you able to consider that the possibility that perhaps the bible is not the word of god but rather the word of misguided/duped/manipulative/lying (delete as applicable) man? The bible is not eyewitness testimony (it was written many years after the event, then copied, translated, edited, copied and translated again), it's hearsay and conjecture. And a source which claims it's own trustworthyness is nothing of the sort. The bible wouldn't stand up in court of law as evidence of anything.

Why should I have to? The default position is to assume nothing exists until shown otherwise. I can probably demonstrate that buckets exist by showing you a bucket. If I wanted to demonstrate to you that pi mesons exist I would have a much harder job. But that's not the same as proving something doesn't exist. The only way I could do that is to show that some set of properties of this thing is inconsistent and cannot exist by definition. Like square circles or married bachelors. By definition a square cannot simultaneously be circular. One cannot be both married and a bachelor. For me the properties of the usual omnimax god qualify to put it in the same group of not possible things as a square circle. The only way you can get from not possible to possible is to relax some of the properties of the omnimax god and limit his abilities, in other words make him a lesser god. But can I prove that a god of sorts doesn't exist anywhere in the universe? Of course not, just like you can't prove that a giant purple box of used diapers isn't currently orbiting saturn. Failing to prove X does not exist is not the same as proving X exists and you know it.

No, you're missing my point. The burden of proof is on you to prove your positive assertion, ie that something exists. It's not your wifes job to prove that you don't love her, it's your job to prove you do. If you say god exists and I don't believe you, it's not my job to prove you wrong, it's your job to prove you right. If you say you need faith, then your evidence is quite obviously lacking and you wont impress me. Faith is another way of saying "trust me". I find it difficult to trust in the existence of something for which there are no proven examples especially when that "thing" has contradictory and illogical properties. Having the capacity to take exceptional and illogical claims as being true on faith (by definition lacking sufficient supportive evidence) is a dangerous position to voluntarily be in IMHO.