/sci/ - Science & Math

The Bible. That was the first book that made me realize religion is bullshit.

>>3248712
That won't work with someone who isn't very open minded however. I would like a reliable source that proves this picture. I have looked into it a little, but the picture seems to be misleading. For example, many sources I have found claim that mithraism was based off of a religion formed before christianity, but the specific things mentioned in this picture came about after the rise of christianity.

Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"

Not atheist, but it has several classic examples on why Christianity is wrong

Stay away from richard dawkins. While he makes many valid points, he's kind of a dick and that alone makes everything he says subject to scrutiny by your opposition.

Probably the same could go for christopher hitchens and sam harris.

This is all if your trying to stay relatively new agey I guess.

"50 reasons people give for believing in a god" is a good one. It's a collection of reasons given by the religious for why they hold religious belief and then a polite, extended explanation as to why it's a poor reason.

The most effective form of disagreement is the one where you first explain their position in full so they know you're not merely disagreeing because you've misunderstood.

>>3248719
There is none. The picture is 100% bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail over the evil Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end. In the final renovation, all of creation—even the souls of the dead that were initially banished to "darkness"—will be reunited in Ahura Mazda, returning to life in the undead form. At the end of time, a savior-figure (a Saoshyant) will bring about a final renovation of the world (frasho.kereti), in which the dead will be revived.[6]

same basic concepts, wiki even has a section on influence on abrahamic religions.

>>3248727
I've heard that about Dawkins. I've read that he's very smart and makes excellent points, but counteracts himself by being the hostile and intolerant sort of person he argues that religious people are.

>>3248731

That's kind of what I figured, just wanted some backup. Horus was the only one I held much hope out for, since there is no question that he was created way before christ.

wait, he doesnt believe that christianity took concepts from other religions?

I wrote a brief essay on the topic some time ago, and I'd be honored if you chose it for your friend to read.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=RHAD5NSZ

>>3248728
Unless there's a chance for rebuttal it seems like bullshit.

>>3248738
It's true. Not quite for the other two..well kinda for hitchens. I could read sam harris all day though.

>>3248738

>>but counteracts himself by being the hostile and intolerant sort of person he argues that religious people are.

He isn't, though. The people propagating this impression count on the majority never having heard him speak, or having actually read his books. They're hoping to turn people against him before they even get the chance to hear his arguments by tarnishing his image.

I wrote a brief essay on the topic some time ago, and I'd be honored if you choose it for your friend to read.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=RHAD5NSZ

concepts of christianity taken from other prior religions, such as gods born of virgins, had similar disciples, etc.

often it's the other way around. things being reinterpreted or changed to be more like christianity.

(Ex: Christmas)

>>3248738
It's frustration ... you wish you could find the right words, the right argument, the thing that will shut their off for a sec and finally realize that their beliefs are wrong...but you can't, you wish you could put your (mental) hand directly in their brain and neutralize that mental locking device called "faith" (also known for me as "fear of the nothingness"), but it can't be done so you feel impotent and unable to communicate this little part of truth, this truth that would allow humanity to radically evolve culturally.... frustration leads to anger, ...right to the dark side.

>>3248743

I mean major concepts obviously, not like a perfect god, miracle performing character, etc., but detailed shit, resurrections, etc.

>>3248756

I need reliable sources to show this though.

>>3248745
Your section on Genesis makes no sense. The garden of Eden doesn't have to be literal to describe the origin of evil.

>>3248745

Thank you anon.

>>3248776

>>Your section on Genesis makes no sense. The garden of Eden doesn't have to be literal to describe the origin of evil.

That was only one point out of many made in that section. I don't agree with your dismissal of it, but it isn't crucial to the overall argument.

>>3248762
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

The flood myth and hundreds, if not thousands of similar ones from around the world fairly obviously had a common origin.

>>3248802
>common origin

Doubt it. There is a myth for basically every natural disaster out there, and floods are very common.

>>3248792
It seems central to your point, which is that 1) The story makes no sense if it's literal, and 2) it must be intended as literal. But it's quite obviously not intended as literal and Christian scholars almost never took it that way until the protestant revolution, which dumbed down a lot of Christian thinking.

>>3248832

>>It seems central to your point, which is that 1) The story makes no sense if it's literal, and 2) it must be intended as literal. But it's quite obviously not intended as literal and Christian scholars almost never took it that way until the protestant revolution, which dumbed down a lot of Christian thinking.

Again, that was not the only point in that section. You have ignored:

#1. The fact that it defines day early on, and certain events in the creation process as taking place on the morning or evening of a particular day. While the word "day" can also be translated as "indefinite period of time", this makes it clear that what they meant was an actual day. From Genesis 1:5:

"5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

There you go, literal days.

#2. Even if it was intended as metaphor, the order is wrong. Earth existing before light, light existing before the sun, the sun before other stars, birds before land animals and so on. Even if they were attempting to communicate something metaphorically, they specified an order of creation that we now know does not line up with the facts.

You're free to dismiss anything you don't agree with. I can't stop you. But try to police yourself, and acknowledge when your reasons for dismissal are flimsy.

>>3248873
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugas

>>3248873
>There you go, literal days.
That's circular reasoning. If you assume it's literal, then you can conclude it's literal based on your assumptions. It's obviously not talking about literal days. It's talking about the successive progressions from "darkness" into "light".

>Even if it was intended as metaphor, the order is wrong. Earth existing before light, light existing before the sun, the sun before other stars,
Maybe you don't understand what metaphor is.

>>3248911

>>That's circular reasoning. If you assume it's literal, then you can conclude it's literal based on your assumptions.

No, that's not what I've done. I've shown you in scripture where it specifies that it's talking about a literal day. It defines it first by distinguishing it from night, and then uses terminology (evening, morning) applicable only to days, not to indeterminate periods of time.

>>It's obviously not talking about literal days. It's talking about the successive progressions from "darkness" into "light".

It says morning and evening. And that description of day and night follows the creation of the sun and moon. It's defining what a day is. An actual day. This is non-negotiable.

>>Maybe you don't understand what metaphor is.

I do. But it's not a blank check to be right even when you're wrong.

Genesis also introduces God. Presumably you don't think the authors of Genesis intended for God to be understood as a purely metaphorical construct. So already, we have to consider some parts of it literal and some parts metaphorical. I think there's a good case to be made for the authors of Genesis, like most at the time, holding inaccurate beliefs as to how the world and life came into being. They certainly didn't have a fully modern, accurate understanding of cosmology.

>>3248952
>It says morning and evening. And that description of day and night follows the creation of the sun and moon. It's defining what a day is. An actual day. This is non-negotiable.

It defines a day as the transition from evening to morning. This is given clearly figurative meaning, as it all is described as happening before the emergence of the sun. The metaphorical nature of this is non-negotiable.

>I do. But it's not a blank check to be right even when you're wrong.
Lol, wat? Metaphor, or more specifically, myth, is a mechanism of talking about spiritual things by specifying natural things. For example, light means wisdom, not photons. The things in the natural world are specified to talk about things in the spiritual world.

Insisting at it is literal and that it's wrong because the sun had to exist before days could exist just shows an ignorance of identifying myth and metaphor as such.

>>3248999

>>It defines a day as the transition from evening to morning. This is given clearly figurative meaning, as it all is described as happening before the emergence of the sun. The metaphorical nature of this is non-negotiable.

Evenings and mornings are not applicable to "indeterminate periods of time". The language used inarguably demonstrates that the authors were referring to literal days. And the fact that the separation of day and night occurred before the creation of the sun and moon is another example of the authors getting the order wrong because they were guessing at things not yet understood by the science of their day (insofar as it could be called science.)

>>Lol, wat? Metaphor, or more specifically, myth, is a mechanism of talking about spiritual things by specifying natural things. For example, light means wisdom, not photons. The things in the natural world are specified to talk about things in the spiritual world.

There is no 'spiritual world' as there is no spirit to begin with. The section on cognitive neurobiology covers this.

>>Insisting at it is literal and that it's wrong because the sun had to exist before days could exist just shows an ignorance of identifying myth and metaphor as such.

You seem to be assuming that the authors had to be correct, and that if they appear wrong, it's because I'm misunderstanding. I think that given the time in which it was written, it's entirely plausible that they were simply ignorant of basic cosmology and really believed the contents of the Genesis account. It's more plausible than bronze age shepherds having a fully modern understanding of cosmology.

haha you believe in god

>>3249035
>Evenings and mornings are not applicable to "indeterminate periods of time".
Nobody is claiming any "indeterminate periods of time". Where are you getting that from?

>The language used inarguably demonstrates that the authors were referring to literal days.
They are inarguably describing things which are not literal days, as they begin before the sun is created.

>the fact that the separation of day and night occurred before the creation of the sun and moon is another example of the authors getting the order wrong because they were guessing at things not yet understood by the science of their day

LOL... at what "day" are you imagining that "science" was not aware that morning and evening were effects of the sun?

>There is no 'spiritual world' as there is no spirit to begin with. The section on cognitive neurobiology covers this.
We can certainly argue that later, but this is more circular reasoning, as the language, like other mythological works of the time and region (cf the stories of Enlil, Enki, Gilgamesh) use natural imagery to describe spiritual things.

>>3249090

>>Nobody is claiming any "indeterminate periods of time". Where are you getting that from?

The day/age apologetic.

>>They are inarguably describing things which are not literal days, as they begin before the sun is created.

The fact that they get the order wrong doesn't mean they did not mean literal days, it means they believed god defined day and night prior to creating the sun and moon.

>>LOL... at what "day" are you imagining that "science" was not aware that morning and evening were effects of the sun?

See above.

>>We can certainly argue that later, but this is more circular reasoning, as the language, like other mythological works of the time and region (cf the stories of Enlil, Enki, Gilgamesh) use natural imagery to describe spiritual things.

You have not explained how it is circular reasoning. I am beginning to doubt that you know what the term means.

>>3249105
>The day/age apologetic.
And who is that? Why does is every atheist enthusiast on /sci/ incapable of carrying on a conversation with another person, and instead carry one on with an imaginary strawman?

>The fact that they get the order wrong doesn't mean they did not mean literal days, it means they believed god defined day and night prior to creating the sun and moon.
Everyone has always defined the morning as when the sun rises and evening as when it sets. The fact that your theory requires the writers of Genesis to not hold this view speaks for itself.

>>3249115

>>And who is that? Why does is every atheist enthusiast on /sci/ incapable of carrying on a conversation with another person, and instead carry one on with an imaginary strawman?

Are you being serious? That's basically the default rationalization among those who claim that Genesis is metaphorical. Are you pretending it's not?

>>Everyone has always defined the morning as when the sun rises and evening as when it sets.

Apparently, they did not believe the sun was necessary for light to exist, as they had light created prior to it. Yes, I agree, this is wrong. They were wrong about it. That's kind of my point.

>>The fact that your theory requires the writers of Genesis to not hold this view speaks for itself.

The fact that you're (presumably) an adult living in a developed nation in the year 2011 and believe that your brain isn't what you think with, but rather a mechanism used by a ghost to drive your body around like a meat mech speaks for itself.

>>3249179
>Are you being serious?
Who the fuck are you arguing with, you fucking retard?

Do you know what the Hebrew word Adm means? It's not a name. It means mankind. But you're going to insist that the ancient Hebrews believed that the sun had nothing to do with it becoming morning or evening, and that they wrote a story about a guy called mankind, and a talking serpent, but they weren't talking about mankind or anything symbolic, they were talking about some literal guy and his talking snake... because that view allows you to perpetuate your ridiculous ideology.

You're just advertizing your ignorance because you can't be bothered to study the subject you're so intent to form and broadcast opinions about. The genesis 1-7 story is a metaphorical story that communicates spiritual principles through natural imagery like 100's of similar ones from the same time and place. An introductory course in the religious literature of the ancient near east would tell you this.

>>3249225

>>Who the fuck are you arguing with, you fucking retard?

Keep it civil or we're done.

>>Do you know what the Hebrew word Adm means? It's not a name. It means mankind.

I'm aware. So? They believed him to be the progenitor of the entire human species. It's a suitably meaningful name.

>>But you're going to insist that the ancient Hebrews believed that the sun had nothing to do with it becoming morning or evening, and that they wrote a story about a guy called mankind, and a talking serpent, but they weren't talking about mankind or anything symbolic, they were talking about some literal guy and his talking snake... because that view allows you to perpetuate your ridiculous ideology.

I'm saying they had an essentially magical view of the world. They saw the process of creation as one of manual assembly. Of God putting together the pieces one a time. In this context, God inventing light and dark prior to the sun and moon makes sense. Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time they didn't know any better.

>>You're just advertizing your ignorance

It's "advertising". :)

>>because you can't be bothered to study the subject you're so intent to form and broadcast opinions about.

Six years of theological education.

>>The genesis 1-7 story is a metaphorical story that communicates spiritual principles through natural imagery like 100's of similar ones from the same time and place. An introductory course in the religious literature of the ancient near east would tell you this.

See above.

A story can be imbued with metaphorical meaning, but also be an account of how ancient man really believed that the world came into being. We simply didn't know at the time, so we invented an explanation, and most really believed it happened. Nobody takes issue with the notion that ancient germanic cultures believed literally in Ymir, Ygdrassil, etc. but everyone is eager to make excuses for the Christian creation myth. Why the special treatment?

I think it's evident that ancient Hebrews really believed that's how the world and life came into being. I don't think they had any way of discovering otherwise. Are you aware that ancient judaic illustrations exist depicting a flat earth cosmology with domed firmament in which stars were physically embedded, as described in scripture? Or was that a metaphor as well?

Why couldn't they have simply been wrong by virtue of the relative ignorance of the era they lived in?

>>3249252
~brofist~

>>3249261
inb4 poopy pants has to resort to name calling.

You have a compelling argument but some people have a need to make excuses for their flawed religions.

>>3249261
>Six years of theological education.
Bullshit. You can't even tell me the meaning of the Genesis story. You've never seen the inside of a theological school.

>everyone is eager to make excuses for the Christian creation myth. Why the special treatment?
There's no special treatment. Read some Joseph Campbell. The Genesis story, is myth, like the thousands of other myths from around the world. It is not natural history. It was never intended as such. Nor were any other mythologies.

>Are you aware that ancient judaic illustrations exist depicting a flat earth cosmology with domed firmament in which stars were physically embedded, as described in scripture?
That's the way Ptolemy drew it as well. So the fuck what? There's nothing in scripture that has anything to do with that.

>Why couldn't they have simply been wrong by virtue of the relative ignorance of the era they lived in?
They certainly didn't have a Copernican understanding of cosmology, if that's what you're asking. And yet that has nothing to do with scripture or myth. They only people who willfully try to misunderstand the scripture and myths of the world are dogmatic fundamentalists and dogmatic atheists. I again recommend you study the subjects of mythology, representative language, and textual analysis before broadcasting opinions that are steeped in ignorance of these subjects.

>>3249433

>>Bullshit. You can't even tell me the meaning of the Genesis story.

I have, you just reject it. You consider your rationalization of it to be objective truth.

>>You've never seen the inside of a theological school.

But I have. The first mainline Christian, the second Episcopalian. Mandatory Bible study for two hours every morning followed by reflective essay writing.

>>There's no special treatment. Read some Joseph Campbell. The Genesis story, is myth, like the thousands of other myths from around the world. It is not natural history. It was never intended as such. Nor were any other mythologies.

I'm aware of Campbellian archetypes/story structure. But again, this doesn't preclude Genesis as a historical account. It is referred to as such matter of factly elsewhere in the Bible. You cannot imagine the authors being that ignorant, but this is because you have the benefit of living in an era where much more is known about the origins of the universe and life.

>>That's the way Ptolemy drew it as well. So the fuck what? There's nothing in scripture that has anything to do with that.

Yes, there is. Here's a sample:

"6 And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good."

Pic related. Yes, Ptolemy labored under the same misconceptions. This just further proves that the authors of the Bible had no access to special knowledge beyond what was known at the time.

>>They only people who willfully try to misunderstand the scripture and myths of the world are dogmatic fundamentalists and dogmatic atheists.

I consider that term a warning sign that you're simply unreceptive to reason.

>>I again recommend you study the subjects of mythology, representative language, and textual analysis before broadcasting opinions that are steeped in ignorance of these subjects.

I'm not. I've studied them in depth. You can't accept this because I disagree with you. But then, that's tremendously immature.

>>3249478
>I have, you just reject it.
Yet every relevant scholar will tell you you are wrong.

>But I have.
What theological school?

>This just further proves that the authors of the Bible had no access to special knowledge beyond what was known at the time.

No one is claiming the bible is based on special astronomical knowledge

>But again, this doesn't preclude Genesis as a historical account.
You're ideology requires that it be a historical account. But it is not, and it flies in the face of all relevant scholarship.

>>the bible describes life as a tree

>>ten thousand years later we find that all species are related and share lineage at some point, like following the tips of branches to the base

religion: 1
science: just proving it

>>3249515
Yo dude... I heard you might like Nostradamus. He's right up your alley. Along with horoscopes. How can they be so right every time?

>>3249515
Oh, and I don't know what the fuck you asspies are arguing about. Science and religion are two different ways we understand reality. All religious dogma and texts are just mythologies: our collective memory which changes as our worldviews change. One day we Christianity and Islam, and everything else will pass and be replaced by something else.

here's a decent place to start: http://www.comparativereligion.com/

>>3249513

>>Yet every relevant scholar will tell you you are wrong.

Demonstrate this.

>>What theological school?

I know how you'll react, but I would no more reveal details like that on 4chan than you would.

>> No one is claiming the bible is based on special astronomical knowledge

Uh, yes they are. You, personally aren't and so far you've had a bad habit of claiming that 100% of theists hold your views. (i.e. claiming that no theists buy into the day/age apologetic)

>>You're ideology requires that it be a historical account. But it is not, and it flies in the face of all relevant scholarship.

What ideology? I was a Christian before I was an atheist. It was accepting these things that made the difference. Also, you claim to speak for all scholars but still you post no citations.

>>3249524

>>Science and religion are two different ways we understand reality.

Religion is not actually a way of understanding reality. It has no mechanism for evaluating the credibility of claims. It cannot and never has produced a verifiable discovery concerning reality because it offers no methodology for doing so, only a collection of what it claims are authoritative answers.

>>3249524
He's claiming that Genesis is NOT a mythology, and that's why he knows that God isn't real.

>>3249546
>He's claiming that Genesis is NOT a mythology, and that's why he knows that God isn't real.

I doubt that. He likely claims that an interfering god does not exist because that is the most likely and very likely position consistent with known evidence. No evidence of miracles despite our looking
+ plausible explanation of why people might believe in this shit and where it came from
-> no miracles
-> no interfering god.

>>3249539
>Uh, yes they are. You, personally aren't and so far you've had a bad habit of claiming that 100% of theists hold your views.
FFS, I give up on you. You insist on arguing with people who are not here instead of me.

I never claimed that any theist held my views.

>>3249546

>>He's claiming that Genesis is NOT a mythology, and that's why he knows that God isn't real.

Don't presume to speak for me. Genesis is myth, in the same sense that every other creation myth is. But it also describes how the authors really believed the world and life upon it came into being. Of course it was also replete with metaphorical meaning, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

If not, what do *you* think they believed concerning origins?

>>3249559
>Implies that he never said every theist
>"Yet every relevant scholar will tell you you are wrong."
Sure is asshat in here.

>>3249546
Just let him believe that then. He's worm food some day anyway. Eventually, if he has any seed, his children will abandon his incorrect interpretation of the book

personally, I find that the tree of life is an incredible way to describe living things: as a tree. The fact that our ancestors could see that even us humans are connected to nature in such a beautiful way tells me how incredibly intelligent they were. How we ever diverted from that view is beyond me. When did we begin viewing ourselves as separate from nature?

>>3249559

>>I never claimed that any theist held my views.

Here's where you did:

>>Yet every relevant scholar will tell you you are wrong.
>>No one is claiming the bible is based on special astronomical knowledge
>>Nobody is claiming any "indeterminate periods of time". Where are you getting that from?

>>3249575
Ever since the bible said that man is created in god's image, and not the duck.

(Ok, I kid. It happened earlier than that, but it's a good joke.)

>>3249575

>>Eventually, if he has any seed, his children will abandon his incorrect interpretation of the book

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/04/03/the-end-of-christian-america.html

:)

You will never believe in God.

>>3249577
"Nobody" as in nobody in this conversation.

No relevant scholar as in no relevant scholar. Your argument is basically that since your sunday school teacher told you that Genesis is literal, and it's obviously nonsense that it's literal, that Genesis must be nonsense. I'm asking you to study the relevant scholarship on mythology and representative language to understand the depth of what's really there.

tell him to watch this, 1-3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PobDpVqny3I

>>3249586
pretending that I don't believe that a body of people who worship one God don't act like a schizophrenic being with several parts and might actually be a higher form of life.

>>3249594

>>3249590

>>No relevant scholar as in no relevant scholar. Your argument is basically that since your sunday school teacher told you that Genesis is literal, and it's obviously nonsense that it's literal, that Genesis must be nonsense.

This is a misrepresentation of my argument, and a demonstration of your dishonesty. For one, I have never attended any Sunday school. My private religious education began at age 14.

>>I'm asking you to study the relevant scholarship on mythology and representative language to understand the depth of what's really there.

What you're doing is insisting that I cannot possibly assert that the emperor is naked until I've thoroughly studied all available books on the topic of invisible clothing.

You still have not cited any scholars who agree with you, by the way.

>>3249567
Who's "they"? In Judaism and Christianity, Genesis is scripture, meaning it is the Word of God. So in the traditions of those religion which are consistent with the scholarship on the writing of that era, it doesn't reflect anyone's ideas of natural history, but contains a spiritual message from God.

>>3248698
Really though, how to convince a theist that he's wrong? It might be easier if he was a real fundie, and dazzle him with science. He might sooner break because of just how incongruent his views are with demonstrable reality. For the less literal text people, it's harder because they make less falsifiable claims.

At least, that's how I'd like to think it goes in my head. In practice, I've seen the fundies just say "God did it!" to explain away all evidence that they're wrong (or "The devil did it!"), such as dendrochronology.

>>3249598
Nice. And correct.

>>3249604
>What you're doing is insisting that I cannot possibly assert that the emperor is naked until I've thoroughly studied all available books on the topic of invisible clothing.

The courtier's reply up in here? God I love you Mad Scientist. Be female so we can make love babies.

>>3249609
>>assuming the God the Jews worshiped then is the same God they worship now.

You may never know exactly how their view of scripture evolved over the years.

>>3249604
> My private religious education began at age 14.
So it wasn't Theological School. What was it, Vacation Bible Camp? You poor thing.

>>3249624
Actually, with Judaism, you can, considering there has been constant literature on Jewish theology for the past 2000 years.

Among Orthodox Jews, it hasn't changed much. They believe in essentially the same God as in the Talmud, which most still hold as unassailable truth.

The more you know, I guess.

>>3249624
The kinds of representative language used in those ancient times is extensively studied by secular scholars. That's my point.

>>3249639
But the genesis story comes from much much earlier than 2000 years ago.

>>3249609

>>Who's "they"? In Judaism and Christianity, Genesis is scripture, meaning it is the Word of God. So in the traditions of those religion which are consistent with the scholarship on the writing of that era, it doesn't reflect anyone's ideas of natural history, but contains a spiritual message from God.

It doesn't actually, because there is no god. But yes, I understand that this is what you believe.

What I am saying is that metaphorical/literal is not either/or. It can have elements of both, and lcearly does, as Genesis introduces God as a character and he is obviously not intended to be taken as purely metaphorical.

There is also no spiritual message in the methodical, matter-of-fact description given of exactly what god created and when. It doesn't read like allegory. It reads like a step by step explanation of how the world as we know it came to be.

The story of Adam and Eve eating of the fruit is certainly full of symbolism, yet the geneaology given later in the Bible still traces back to Adam, as a literal figure. Obviously they believed both that Adam actually did father all of mankind, *and* they understood God's ejection of Adam and Eve from the garden for their pursuit of godlike knowledge to have deeper meaning with regards to what the relationship with god and man was to be after that point.

>>3249644
yes, but the way they interpreted those words changed over time. Thoughts are very relative to the environment they are formed in. You could have kept a journal everyday of your life but looking back ten years you would read them in a completely different context. Also it's impossible to tell exactly when Moses, if it had happened, led his people out of Egypt and what took place and how the people viewed it then in perfect context, or if the story was made up or evolved orally before being written down.

>>3249628

>>So it wasn't Theological School. What was it, Vacation Bible Camp? You poor thing.

Strong words, coming from a young earth creationist. Are you seriously not aware of simple proofs (like measuring the distance to stars via parallax and calculating how long it would take their light to reach us) that the universe is far older than 6,000 years?

>>3249669
Wait, he's a young Earth creationist? Why are you even talking to him and not just pointing at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

The argument is over after that. Either they're Kurt Wise and they will ignore all evidence because of their faith, or they'll see that indeed the Earth is a bit older than 10,000 years.

>>3248698
>religious friend

>>3249676

>>Wait, he's a young Earth creationist?

No, I don't think so. However, he's claimed that I am a dogmatic fundamentalist whose sole education is Bible camp. As he has no apparent reservations when it comes to misrepresenting me, I no longer feel obligated to represent him accurately either.

If he stops, so will I. If he persists, so will I.

>>3249688
Assuming you're male then? Why aren't there any female scientists, be they mad or not? And yes, I mad.

>>3249654
>It doesn't actually, because there is no god.
How do you know this?
>But yes, I understand that this is what you believe.
I didn't make any statement about what I believe.

>as Genesis introduces God as a character and he is obviously not intended to be taken as purely metaphorical.
I started to describe the ancient representative method of writing before. There are three levels, the natural, spiritual and divine. Natural imagery is invoked to explain things about both the spiritual and divine, although sometimes the latter can be referenced directly. When the spiritual or divine is referenced directly, it's not metaphor for anything.

>There is also no spiritual message in the methodical, matter-of-fact description given of exactly what god created and when.

That's willful ignorance. There have been volumes upon volumes written about the spiritual content of it.

>It doesn't read like allegory.
It is almost unmistakably reads like allegory. It is only a relatively recent tradition that tries to treat it otherwise.

>Obviously they believed both that Adam actually did father all of mankind,
Once again, Adam isn't a name. It doesn't say God created Adam. It says God created mankind. The ancients liked to create pseudohistories to hold their stories together. That doesn't mean that the pseudohistories were intended to be thought of as real histories. I know it's not the way we think, but it's the way they thought.

>The bible is the infallible word of God. His words hold ultimate weight.
>OH LOL BUT IT'S UP TO INTERPRETATION BY MERE HUMANS AND SCHOLARS LOL xD

You guys aren't true Christians.

>If evolution is real, the genesis story isn't true.
>Without genesis and Eve, there is no original sin
>No original sin = no reason for jebus to die
>No Jebus = no christianity

>>3249705

>>How do you know this?

It's laid out in the document I linked to. Did you finish reading it? To be clear, I am talking about the Christian god. Of course I cannot disprove an ultra vague, generic god that nobody worships, invented on the spot specifically to aid in argument.

>>I didn't make any statement about what I believe.

You didn't have to, unless you secretly don't believe any of the claims you made I can reasonably infer that they are included among your beliefs.

>>I started to describe the ancient representative method of writing before. There are three levels, the natural, spiritual and divine. Natural imagery is invoked to explain things about both the spiritual and divine, although sometimes the latter can be referenced directly. When the spiritual or divine is referenced directly, it's not metaphor for anything.

Nonetheless, if not all of Genesis is metaphorical, then which portions are and are not is up for debate. I would argue it's most easily determined from the writing style. Metaphorical portions are more cryptic and poetic, while literla historical narrative is bland, matter-of-fact, reading like a step by step explanation. The second creation story is rich with metaphorical writing (although it's evident from the geneaology presented later that they believed Adam to be a literal figure, and you haven't disputed this.) while the first one isn't.

>>That's willful ignorance. There have been volumes upon volumes written about the spiritual content of it.

I'd wager most or all of those works also acknowledge that the ancient Hebrew authors also believed Adam was a literal historical figure and that there was an actual six day creation and an actual garden of Eden. Again, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

>>It is almost unmistakably reads like allegory. It is only a relatively recent tradition that tries to treat it otherwise.

Then what of the geneaology which treats Adam as an actual historical figure? What of the paintings of Eden from antiquity? What of the ancient Judaic illustrations and descriptions of a flat earth comsology with a domelike firmament?

>>Once again, Adam isn't a name. It doesn't say God created Adam. It says God created mankind.

All names have alternative meanings. Your interpretation does not account for the fact that the geneaology presented later in the Bible traces all of humankind back to one couple.

>>The ancients liked to create pseudohistories to hold their stories together. That doesn't mean that the pseudohistories were intended to be thought of as real histories. I know it's not the way we think, but it's the way they thought.

I agree that the history was fabricated, but I think if you were to travel back to that period and ask the average jew where they thought human beings and all other life on Earth came from, they'd give you the Genesis account.

>>3249726
no Xenu => no scientology
Scientology exists => Xenu

Same logic

>>3249745

What? No it isn't. A religion can exist without its central claims being true. What he's said is that one of the central claims of Christianity conflicts with scientific findings.

>>3249744
>Nonetheless, if not all of Genesis is metaphorical, then which portions are and are not is up for debate.
Not at all. The ancient representative system of writing is understood; it's not up for debate.

>I'd wager most or all of those works also acknowledge that the ancient Hebrew authors also believed Adam was a literal historical figure and that there was an actual six day creation and an actual garden of Eden.
You'd lose.

>Then what of the geneaology which treats Adam as an actual historical figure?
Are you talking about the Gospel of Matthew? What does that have to do with what the intended message of the Genesis story was? That was written thousands of years later by different people.

>What of the paintings of Eden from antiquity? What of the ancient Judaic illustrations and descriptions of a flat earth comsology with a domelike firmament?
There must be some crazy logic here I don't understand -- that if you draw a depiction of a scene from scripture, you must believe that its message isn't symbolic.

>All names have alternative meanings.
It's not an alternative meaning. It's not a name.

>if you were to travel back to that period and ask the average jew where they thought human beings and all other life on Earth came from, they'd give you the Genesis account.
Sure, what else would they say? So what? Now try and ask them if they think the value of the story is as natural history. That's the point here. You're apparently claiming to be an atheist because Genesis is an insufficient natural history, when that isn't even remotely the point of the story.

>>3249705
Mr. squiggle trip, please acknowledge you have lost gracefully. You continue to provide nothing to back up anything you are saying.

>>3249831
GTFO. No one has provided any citations here, but what I'm saying is based on volumes of analysis of Genesis I can refer you to, the works of Campbell and other mythologists, the works of one of the greatest linguists to do work on the rongorongo language with a keen insight into the ancient representative way of thinking. Let me know what you'd like to learn about, and I'd be happy to point you in the right direction.

>>3249726
This is the same fallacy that Mad Scientist presents. It is a fallacy because the introduction of sin described in genesis is the same whether the story is understood literally or figuratively.

>>3249827

>>Not at all. The ancient representative system of writing is understood; it's not up for debate.

Please supply a citation demonstrating that it is unanimously agreed that your interpretation is correct.

>>You'd lose.

Demonstrate it.

>>Are you talking about the Gospel of Matthew? What does that have to do with what the intended message of the Genesis story was? That was written thousands of years later by different people.

What it has to do with the Genesis story is that it references Adam as a literal historical figure.

>>There must be some crazy logic here I don't understand -- that if you draw a depiction of a scene from scripture, you must believe that its message isn't symbolic.

Not "must", but it's likely. Extra-Biblical literature confirms that scholars of the period considered the genesis account to be literal. Throughout history up until very recently all Christians were what we'd now call 'creationists'.

>>It's not an alternative meaning. It's not a name.

Yes it is, as evidenced by the geneaology presented later in the Bible which speaks of Adam as a literal person. You still haven't properly addressed the implications of this fact.

>>Sure, what else would they say? So what? Now try and ask them if they think the value of the story is as natural history. That's the point here. You're apparently claiming to be an atheist because Genesis is an insufficient natural history, when that isn't even remotely the point of the story.

You've misunderstood. First of all, that was only one section out of many in the essay. It is not the only reason I am an atheist, just one of many. Secondly, It is not because Genesis is an insufficient natural history, but because it contains very basic errors that should not be there if the authors were divinely informed. I simply don't agree that verses describing the precise order in which plants, animals of various types, etc. were added to the Earth are purely metaphor. It's plainly not the case.

>>3249867

>>This is the same fallacy that Mad Scientist presents. It is a fallacy because the introduction of sin described in genesis is the same whether the story is understood literally or figuratively.

But for this to work you must argue that Genesis is a metaphorical account of our actual history and the point at which we first sinned. If it's true, but metaphorically expressed, then you are in effect arguing that the authors of the Bible knew of our evolutionary history and were describing a point at which our protohuman ancestors first transgressed against god's law. This requires that they have special knowledge not available at the time.

>>3249875
>Demonstrate it.
http://newearth.org/frontier/arcana/ac01.htm

>What it has to do with the Genesis story is that it references Adam as a literal historical figure.
It was written by different people 1000's of years later. Unless you're claiming that the Bible is all the inspired work of God, it has no bearing on the actual meaning of Genesis. Whether or not the writer of Matthew thought Adam and Seth and Enoch were literal individuals is immaterial to the textual analysis of genesis.

>Throughout history up until very recently all Christians were what we'd now call 'creationists'.
It's the other way around. You need to learn your history better. There were virtually no biblical scholars who were creationists before the reformation. Creationism was part of the dumbed down version of biblical understanding that came with the democratization of the Bible.

>>3249875
>Not "must", but it's likely.
By this logic all those Christian Renaissance painters who painted scenes from Greek and Roman mythology likely believed that the Greek and Roman gods literally existed.

>>3249889
>Emanuel Swedenborg (born Emanuel Swedberg; January 29, 1688[1] – March 29, 1772) was a Swedish scientist, philosopher, Christian mystic[2][3] and theologian. Swedenborg had a prolific career as an inventor and scientist. In 1741 at the age of fifty-three he entered into a spiritual phase[4] in which he eventually began to experience dreams and visions beginning on Easter weekend April 6, 1744. This culminated in a spiritual awakening, whereupon he claimed he was appointed by the Lord to write a heavenly doctrine to reform Christianity. He claimed that the Lord had opened his spiritual eyes, so that from then on he could freely visit heaven and hell, and talk with angels, demons and other spirits.

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

>>3249889

>>http://newearth.org/frontier/arcana/ac01.htm

That's one. Keep going.

>>It was written by different people 1000's of years later.

Doesn't matter, it's still in the Bible and thus still binding re: the credibility of the Christian religion.

>>Unless you're claiming that the Bible is all the inspired work of God, it has no bearing on the actual meaning of Genesis.

I personally don't believe any of it is, but yes, that's a necessary Christian belief.

>>Whether or not the writer of Matthew thought Adam and Seth and Enoch were literal individuals is immaterial to the textual analysis of genesis.

Your argument holds true for Jews, but not Christians. For Christians, the NT authors need to have been divinely inspired. The OT is included primarily for context.

>>It's the other way around. You need to learn your history better. There were virtually no biblical scholars who were creationists before the reformation. Creationism was part of the dumbed down version of biblical understanding that came with the democratization of the Bible.

Completely false. You're the one who needs to read up on history. One needn't consult the Bible here, there are countless works outside of the Bible from the period which reference the Biblical creation story as a literal event. You need to cherrypick the writings of niche theologians who were of fringe opinion at the time in order to claim otherwise.

>>3249894

>>By this logic all those Christian Renaissance painters who painted scenes from Greek and Roman mythology likely believed that the Greek and Roman gods literally existed.

Do you deny that the greeks believed their own gods existed? Did they not illustrate scenes of their own deities, with sincere belief?

Moreover, and this is *key*:

If they did not believe in the Biblical creation account, what did they believe concerning origins?

It cannot have been evolution, because that theory was not made public until 1855.

So what did they *literally* believe concerning origins, and why are there no illustrations of *that* process?

>>3249905
>>3249905
Herp Derp. There's no paintings of what they believe, it means the Bible must be the answer!

This is so fucking dumb I don't know where to start.

>>3249918

>>Herp Derp. There's no paintings of what they believe, it means the Bible must be the answer!

I used paintings as an example because they were brought up earlier. I could also point out that no literary evidence exists for an understanding of origins widespread among ancient Christians other than the Genesis account.

>>This is so fucking dumb I don't know where to start.

Anywhere's fine. If it's so dumb, you'll have no trouble explaining why the creation account is treated as factual in all historical Christian literature right up to (and for some time after) the publication of On the Origin of Species.

>>3249926
I don't have too. It's irrelevant, it's correlation does not equal causation, it's a baseless claim which has no place in a forum supposedly filled with fact.

This is just a heads up, if you faggots want a philosophy/religion board, moot is on /b/ right now:

>>>/b/335342470

>>3249933

>>I don't have too.

You do if you hope to maintain the validity of your position.

>>It's irrelevant, it's correlation does not equal causation, it's a baseless claim which has no place in a forum supposedly filled with fact.

On the contrary, if he claims that Christians in antiquity did not actually believe that the Genesis account accurately describes our origins, there should exist some other explanation of what they *did* believe. It could not have been evolution as that theory was not published until 1855.

Therefore, whatever Genesis was metaphorically describing, it was not a true account of our origins and whatever Christians did believe about our origins was mistaken. QED.

>>3249940
My only proposition was denying yours, which for obvious reasons -- highlighted before -- have already been articulated.

There doesn't have to be some artistic evidence explaining a groups particular creation myth. Why you keep believing this is beyond me. Just get the fuck over it: it's a classic case of correlation doesn't equal causation.

>>3249945

>>My only proposition was denying yours, which for obvious reasons -- highlighted before -- have already been articulated.

Denying mine has implications you must address. And I've also already explained at length

>>There doesn't have to be some artistic evidence explaining a groups particular creation myth. Why you keep believing this is beyond me. Just get the fuck over it: it's a classic case of correlation doesn't equal causation.

That's meaningless. I'm not demanding artwork explaining a creation myth. I'm asking, if Christians did not believe the Genesis account literally occurred, why is it implicitly affirmed in period literature, and why is there no mention of any widespread alternative account of origins.

These are all reasonable questions which must be answered if one wishes to justifiably deny that Christians did not consider the genesis account to be an actual historical event.

>this whole thread

>>3249956
>implications you must address
No, I really don't. These so-called implications are meaningless and ultimately baseless, for reasons I shouldn't have to go into.

>why is there no mention of any widespread alternative account of origins.
Why does there have to be? Why couldn't it be forgotten long ago?

Also: "why is it implicitly..." I hope to God I don't have to explain what implicitly means to you.

>>3249968

>>No, I really don't. These so-called implications are meaningless and ultimately baseless, for reasons I shouldn't have to go into.

In other words, you've got nothing.

>>Why does there have to be? Why couldn't it be forgotten long ago?

If it was more widespread than the Genesis account, that would be reflected in the literature we do have. It isn't. Everything we have from the period which mentions our origins treats the Genesis account as a matter of historical fact. There is no mention whatsoever of any alternative explanation for origins except as heresy.

>>Also: "why is it implicitly..." I hope to God I don't have to explain what implicitly means to you.

You don't. Read the sentence again. Provided *you* understand the meaning of the word, it parses just fine.

>>3248698
Tell him to pick up any thorough book on Egyptian beliefs.

Carl Sagan- the demon haunted work: science a candle in the dark

>>3249956

I've only read about half way down this thread and then your last point, so please forgive me if you've already addressed these issues.

Firstly, a metaphorical interpretation of genesis does not require that the metaphorical interpretation is a metaphor for Creation.I mean it does seem likely that that is what it is, and it would perhaps take a lot of fiddling and twisting to make it fit, but I think it could be scripturally consistent. As someone else said earlier, I believe, it could be a metaphor more for the introduction of evil into the world that for the creation of the world/universe itself.

Secondly, simply because old-skool Christians/Jews believed that Genesis was a literal account does not mean that it is. Again, the most probable situation would seem to be that in which those who were born closer to the time of writing of Genesis possessed a better understanding, but that is not necessarily the case at all. You are, essentially, saying that "old Christians believed this, and therefore this is your argument." I suppose it is a straw man, in a way. Anyway, if scripture is indeed "divinely inspired" (by a necessarily transcendent being) then what makes you think that even those close to the time of writing would understand it's meaning? Even the author(s)?

Thirdly, I believe using the definition of the Hebrew for "day" as an indefinite period of time is used more for Christians who are not YECs interpreting Genesis literally. It allows them to interpret scripture literally without having to try and stand by a belief that the Earth is less than 10k years old. I've never heard that used to support a metaphorical interpretation before in my life - it is simply unnecessary! The whole point of a metaphor is that it has a loosely defined meaning anyway.

>>3248747
Dawkins is a confrontational jerk. I don't like him but I think we need at least one person like him. Hitchens can be just as confrontational, but instead of Dawkins' "you're a stupid faggot because of these ways in which your argument is horribly flawed," Hitchens is more "you're a stupid faggot because of these five hundred different times what you're saying has been proven to fail miserably." Harris is much less argumentative, but he's extremely condescending; he never examines his own arguments for faults, and he lets his own political views leak into all of his unrelated material.

>>3250004

>>As someone else said earlier, I believe, it could be a metaphor more for the introduction of evil into the world that for the creation of the world/universe itself.

For it to be a true account of that event, (albiet metaphorically expressed) the authors would need to have had knowledge not available at the time. And if it is instead a metaphorical explanation of something incorrect, my point stands. They were wrong about something supposedly divinely revealed.

>>Secondly, simply because old-skool Christians/Jews believed that Genesis was a literal account does not mean that it is

Other cultures that existed contemporaneously with the authors of the Bible held very similar views re: cosmology and origins. Every major culture at the time, from Egypt to the Teutonic cultures, had a flat earth cosmology. In Egypt the Earth was flat with corners, like a table, with a sheet stretched overhead like a tent. In Teutonic cultures it was a flat disc encircled by a massive snake and suspended in the branches of the world tree, Yggdrasil. It was our best guess at the time, and nearly everyone agreed to some variation of it. Likewise with supernatural creation stories, which shared many thematic elements which seemed common sense before we had a legitimate understanding of things like planetary and solar accretion, or of course evolution.

>>Anyway, if scripture is indeed "divinely inspired" (by a necessarily transcendent being) then what makes you think that even those close to the time of writing would understand it's meaning? Even the author(s)?

Because they were allegedly the ones to whom it was revealed.

>>Thirdly, I believe using the definition of the Hebrew for "day" as an indefinite period of time is used more for Christians who are not YECs interpreting Genesis literally. It allows them to interpret scripture literally without having to try and stand by a belief that the Earth is less than 10k years old.

Yes, but that's not an honest motivation. It subtly acknowledges that scripture as it's written is wrong, and must be retconned.

>>I've never heard that used to support a metaphorical interpretation before in my life - it is simply unnecessary! The whole point of a metaphor is that it has a loosely defined meaning anyway.

It is not, however, a free pass to make it mean anything one wants. And a metaphor isn't simply a string of text which secretly means some other string of text, there must be firm, demonstrable parallels, such that one clearly represents the other. In the event that the Genesis account is metaphorical but true, it describes things the authors could not have known at the time, besides which if it's supposed to metaphorically describe evolution then the metaphorical steps in the creation process should mirror the actual order in which we now know those things occurred. Yet that is not the case.

>>3250004
The fact anyone can use metaphor to make any story mean anything they want it to mean would render arguing about scripture pointless even if you were arguing about it in its original form and had the collective subconscious AKA cultural background of the author. That it's thousands of years later and has been translated and re-translated several times over renders it doubly pointless.

Addressing the concept of God independent of gospel is a much more productive discussion.

>>3250030

>>Addressing the concept of God independent of gospel is a much more productive discussion.

But god does not exist independently of religious literature any more than Gandalf exists independently of Tolkeinsian literature.

>>3250035
Well, it's a question of top-down versus bottom-up discussion. Scripture is top-down; you tiddle about with the details of language and detail.

The bottom down approach is to start with God, and have the believing individual enumerate a set of minimum characteristics that to them are required for God to have, the lack of any one of which would disqualify the hypothetical entity from being called God.

Then you pick a characteristic and discuss it. Suppose for instance my discussion companion listed omniscience as a required characteristic for God to possess. I could respond with several different arguments, such as putting forth that an all-knowing being is an absolute slave to its own omniscience. I could also put forth that an all-knowing being would know the future, but if it ever acted, it would change the future, which would change how it acted, which would change what it knew, which would change how it acted, and so on in an infinite loop, which indicates the very concept of omniscience is a self-contradicting logical impossibility.

Much more stimulating than pedantic debates over Aramaic denotation.

>>3250054

>>The bottom down approach is to start with God, and have the believing individual enumerate a set of minimum characteristics that to them are required for God to have, the lack of any one of which would disqualify the hypothetical entity from being called God.

I agree, and I concede earlier than a god concept made deliberately so vague that it cannot be disproven is occasionally dusted off for use in argument. I have nothing to say against that god, as nobody worships it anyway. However, the specific gods of specific religions are attached to crucial ancillary claims, some of which are testable and have been discredited.

>>Much more stimulating than pedantic debates over Aramaic denotation.

I suppose, and you're free to. I'm not as interested in that line of argument.

>>3250054
>an all-knowing being is an absolute slave to its own omniscience
I dont understand your argument. You experience omnipotence everytime you go to sleep and thats when you are at your freest.
Your concept of the future sounds somewhat limited. Its comparable to a chess game. Its possible to know every outcome and possibility the game holds. But you get to choose which on.

>claims... some of which are testable and have been discredited

What if an incredibly powerful and incredibly knowledgeable being is the source of all the evidence which has been used to discredit these claims, and has placed them there for reasons that humans cannot understand?

What if God exists and has created all the evidence against His existence for reasons that we cannot understand? We cannot evaluate how likely this is, and we therefore cannot evaluate any evidence whatsoever if it is in any way relevant to God.

But wait, couldn't everything be relevant to God? We have no way of knowing what is and what isn't relevant to God, and so we have yet another variable that is impossible to know... every belief is necessarily irrational.


>trollface

but seriously, where is the flaw in this logic?

>>3250060

But for an omniscient being to be literally omniscient, it would have to already know which future it would have chosen?

>>3250060
>Its possible to know every outcome and possibility the game holds. But you get to choose which on.

But you're still not omniscient. An omniscient God KNOWS what GOD, HIMSELF, is going to do. No choices. He knows exactly what he is going to do now, five seconds from now, and file million years from now, in exact details. He can't change his future actions because he would already know that he was going to change them. He has no choice but to follow exactly the course of action his own absolute knowledge has laid out for him.

The concept of omniscience, of all-knowing, requires absolute knowledge not only of the universe but of itself, its own actions, and the ways in which those actions will effect the universe.

>You experience omnipotence everytime you go to sleep and thats when you are at your freest.

Can someone explain to me what this sentence is supposed to mean?

but wait!

what if we define omniscience as knowledge of everything that it is physically possible to know? boom! paradox=unparadoxical

>>3250077
>>3250076
Youre implying that the future is a concrete form. Hes also omnipotent. he has to create the future. You cant know something thats doesnt exist.
You have to look at it from his perspective, not yours.

>>3250083

>omniscient
>can't know
>derp

see >>3250081

>>3250083
Either he has complete self-knowledge or he doesn't. If he doesn't, AND he interacts with the universe in ANY WAY, he doesn't absolutely know the future of anything at all.

>>3250087
Youre basically asking whats the speed of darkness then complaining that nobody knows it. You need to rethink the form you are asking the question.

>>3250088

Why's that? He just already knows in which ways he will interact, and how those interactions will change things. You're right in that it removes free will, but it only becomes paradoxical if he tries to change things from what he already knows will happen - which he won't/can't.

(Note: this inability is no real devaluing of his omnipotence- very few people define omnipotence as the ability do absolutely anything: it is commonly understood to be the ability to do anything that it is logically possible to do).

>>3250092

If God is omniscient to the point at which he knows everything - even that which is logically impossible to know - then why can he not know the speed of darkness? Hell, why can't he know things that aren't true? It doesn't make sense, but so what? It doesn't need to be logical.

All these paradoxes arise from people leaving the omnis undefined.

>>3250098
>then why can he not know the speed of darkness
Okay im going to end the debate with you with
>Concepts
In you mind darkness has a speed. But thats not the concept he created. It doesnt exist. Darkness is the absence of light. Speed does not apply to it. We created darkness.

>>3250094
Exactly, it removes God's free will. That is not something most theists are willing to concede as a necessary consequence of an omniscient god.

>>3250088
Again you assume the future has a concrete form.
He knows himself. But that means little about what he will do. Im not saying that he doesnt, but im saying that self-knowledge has nothing to do with the future. The future is a concept you created. Its just the progression of the present.
Youre assuming hes looking at time with your perspective.
Like in calculus there isnt a distinction between infinity +1 and infinity.

>>3250105

Are you going to read the rest of my post? Your refutation appears to be that this would require God knowing something that it is impossible to know.

>If God is omniscient to the point at which he knows everything - even that which is logically impossible to know

faggot

>>3250119
Impossible would imply that it exist but theres something that can't be done with it. Darkness would have to exist for it to be impossible to determine something about it.
>Logically impossible
Where are you getting this from. Have you ever briefed yourself with philosophy. Logic in the manner youre are thinking is not correct. There is nothing logically impossible. Its just means the standards by which you hold logical no longer apply.

>>3250123
infinity =/= infinity
Theres no way to place a limit on it.

>>3250118

You must still place some limit upon the infinity that is omniscience for your argument to work.

Someones probably already mentioned, but I'm gonna throw another vote out there for

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins.

Sure people may think he's overrated and his writing style isn't the best, but that book is a stunningly well put together account of everything wrong with theism and mainly focusses on Christianity. Its amazingly put together, cross referenced everywhere so you can read any section and it will make sense or if not link you to the section where he explained what something he's using again is from

+1 for the God Delusion!

"the god delusion" by R Dawkins is a famous one, but not sure if good

>>3250143

Exactly- once you place a limit upon an infinity, it is no longer an infinity.

>>3250144
>>3250152
Youre misunderstanding. Theres no limit on omniscience. But there is a limit on what exist.

>>3250152
I think you didnt catch how he said infinity doesnt equal infinity
If i said infinity>infinity (perfectly possible) this doesnt mean im placing a limit on infinity. But one is greater than the other. I think the difference is which infinity youre debating upon.

>>3250137

A logical impossibility as in something that is logically impossible e.g. a square circle, dark light. They are logical contradictions because if light is dark then it is not light; if a circle is square then it is not a circle. Can you give me a logical as to why "logic in the manner youre are thinking is not correct"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you are saying this: "if you find yourself discovering something that is logically impossible, you are incorrect - it is your logic that is wrong."


wrt the God Delusion, it's ok. Quite good at refuting the quite obviously stupid theistic arguments, but also contains a lot of rambling and unsupported speculation. Also, I believe that there are at least two misquotes in there. I have read somewhere that he is not the best at checking his sources, although that may or may not be true.

>>3250159
>>3250169

Nonono. I'm sorry guys, I probably shouldn't have said about the placing limits on infinities: what I meant was, your argument does not work if you use omniscience a literal infintiy i.e. knowing absolutely everything. You must limit this omniscient to knowing everything that it is logically possible to know, everything that is is physically possible to know, or some other similar variance on the theme. The original argument I was referring to does not make sense if God is literally omniscient i.e. can know anything, even stuff that is logically impossible to know (such as the dimensions of a square circle, or the speed of darkness).

>>3250159
It depends form how you define the word:
it could mean god knows everything that is going to happen or merely what is happening right now.

Consider that it's a 5000 years old word.

>>3250171
>if you find yourself discovering something that is logically impossible, you are incorrect - it is your logic that is wrong
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. Logic is a way of interpreting things.
2+2=5 is not illogical. Its an axiom different from the one you previously observed (2+2=4).

>>3250185

So are you suggesting that logic is subjective?
I'd be very careful haha; remember this is /sci/

>>3250184

Exactly this, and not even samefagging

DYING MAN - Hold. I shall give you mine. By Nature created, created with very keen tastes, with very strong passions; placed on this earth for the sole purpose of yielding to them and satisfying them, and these effects of my creation being naught but necessities directly relating to Nature’s fundamental designs or, if you prefer, naught but essential derivatives proceeding from her intentions in my regard, all in accordance with her laws, I repent not having acknowledged her omnipotence as fully as I might have done, I am only sorry for the modest use I made of the faculties (criminal in your view, perfectly ordinary in mine) she gave me to serve her; I did sometimes resist her, I repent it. Misled by your absurd doctrines, with them for arms I mindlessly challenged the desires instilled in me by a much diviner inspiration, and thereof do I repent: I only plucked an occasional flower when I might have gathered an ample harvest of fruit - such are the just grounds for the regrets I have, do me the honor of considering me incapable of harboring any others.

PRIEST - Lo! where your fallacies take you, to what pass are you brought by your sophistries! To created being you ascribe all the Creator’s power, and those unlucky penchants which have led you astray, ah! do you not see they are merely the products of corrupted nature, to which you attribute omnipotence?

DYING MAN -Friend - it looks to me as though your dialectic were as false as your thinking. Pray straighten your arguing or else leave me to die in peace. What do you mean by Creator, and what do you mean by corrupted nature?

PRIEST - The Creator is the master of the universe, ‘tis He who has wrought everything, everything created, and who maintains it all through the mere fact of His omnipotence.

DYING MAN - An impressive figure indeed. Tell me now why this so very formidable fellow did nevertheless, as you would have it, create a corrupted nature?

PRIEST - What glory would men ever have, had not God left them free will; and in the enjoyment thereof, what merit could come to them, were there not on earth the possibility of doing good and that of avoiding evil?

DYING MAN - And so your god bungled his work deliberately, in order to tempt or test his creature - did he then not know, did he then not doubt what the result would be?

PRIEST - He knew it undoubtedly but, once again, he wished to leave man the merit of choice.

DYING MAN - And to what purpose, since from the outset he knew the course affairs would take and since, all-mighty as you tell me he is, he had but to make his creature choose as suited him?

PRIEST - Who is there can penetrate God’s vast and infinite designs regarding man, and who can grasp all that makes up the universal scheme?

DYING MAN - Anyone who simplifies matters, my friend, anyone, above all, who refrains from multiplying causes in order to confuse effects all the more. What need have you of a second difficulty when you are unable to resolve the first, and once it is possible that Nature may have all alone done what you attrubute to your god, why must you go looking for someone to be her overlord? The cause and explanation of what you do not understand may perhaps be the simplest thing in the world. Perfect your physics and you will understand Nature better, refine your reason, banish your prejudices and you’ll have no further need of your god.

>>3250190
Subjective from an objective perspective.
Objective from a subjective perspective.

PRIEST - Wretched man! I took you for no worse than a Socinian - arms I had to combat you. But ‘tis clear you are an athiest, and seeing that your heart is shut to the authentic and innumerable proofs we receive every day of our lives of the Creator’s existence - I have no more to say to you. There is no restoring the blind to the light.

DYING MAN - Softly, my friend, own that between the two, he who blindfolds himself must surely see less of the light than he who snatches the blindfold away from his eyes. You compose, you construct, you dream, you magnify and complicate; I sift, I simplify. You accumulate errors, pile one atop the other; I combat them all. Which one of us is blind?

PRIEST - Then you do not believe in God at all?

He may not have but at least sources are there. This histrory mayjor sounds like he's going to be as stubborn and closedminded as whichever faggots arguing in this thread. Always deflecting arguments with an excuse. Dawkins gives very little room for excuses at all.

It may not be referenced solidly enough for these diehard fundamentalists but seriously NOTHING ever is. They don't read it with an open mind they read it looking for the tinest flaw or crack so they can go 'see look haha that person never said that it was someone else saying that person said it see guys dawkins is wrong!!!'

DYING MAN - No. And for one very sound reason: it is perfectly impossible to believe in what one does not understand. Between understanding and faith immediate connections must subsist; understanding is the very lifeblood of faith; where understanding has ceased, faith is dead; and when they who are in such a case proclaim they have faith, they deceive. You yourself, preacher, I defy you to believe in the god you predicate to me - you must fail because you cannot demonstrate him to me, because it is not in you to define him to me, because consequently you do not understand him - because as of the moment you do not understand him, you can no longer furnish me any reasonable argument concerning him, and because, in sum, anything beyond the limits and grasp of the human mind is either illusion or futility; and because your god having to be one or the other of the two, in the first instance I should be mad to believe in him, in the second a fool. My friend, prove to me that matter is inert and I will grant you a creator, prove to me that Nature does not suffice to herself and I’ll let you imagine her ruled by a higher force; until then, expect nothing from me, I bow to evidence only, and evidence I perceive only through my senses: my belief goes no farther than they, beyond that point my faith collapses. I believe in the sun because I see it, I conceive it as the focal center of all the inflammable matter in Nature, its periodic movement pleases but does not amaze me. ‘Tis a machanical operation, perhaps as simple as the workings of electricity, but which we are unable to understand.

>>3250212
You dont seem to understand the purpose of debating. Its a form of understand each other, not to convert each other but to reach a consensus. You bash each others ideas until there is one left. Calling one argument an excuse is just means your own is too weak.

Need I bother more about it? when you have roofed everthing over with your god, will I be any the better off? and shall I still not have to make an effort at least as great to understand the artisan as to define his handiwork? By edifying your chimera it is thus no service you have rendered me, you have made me uneasy in my mind but you have not enlightened it, and instead of gratitude I owe you resentment. You god is a machine you fabricated in your passions’ behalf, you manipulated it to their liking; but the day it interfered with mine, I kicked it out of my way, deem it fitting that I did so; and now, at this moment when I sink and my soul stands in need of calm and philosophy, belabor it not with your riddles and your cant, which alarm but will not convince it, which will irritate without improving it; good friends and on the best terms have we ever been, this soul and I, so Nature wished it to be; as it is, so she expressly modeled it, for my soul is the result of the dispositions she formed in me pursuant to her own ends and needs; and as she has an equal need of vices and virtues, whenever she was pleased to move me to evil, she did so, whenever she wanted a good deed from me, she roused in me the desire to perform one, and even so I did as I was bid. Look nowhere but to her workings for the unique cause of our fickle human behavior, and in her laws hope to find no other springs than her will and her requirements.

PRIEST - And so whatever is in this world, is necessary.

DYING MAN - Exactly.

PRIEST - But is everything is necessary - then the whole is regulated.

DYING MAN - I am not the one to deny it.

PRIEST - And what can regulate the whole save it be an all-powerful and all-knowing hand?

DYING MAN - Say, is it not necessary that gunpowder ignite when you set a spark to it?

PRIEST - Yes.

DYING MAN - And do you find any presence of wisdom in that?

PRIEST - None.

DYING MAN - It is then possible that things necessariliy come about without being determined by a superior intelligence, and possible hence that everything derive logically from a primary cause, without there being either reason or wisdom in that primary cause.

PRIEST - What are you aiming at?

DYING MAN - At proving to you that the world and all therein may be what it is and as you see it to be, without any wise and reasoning cause directing it, and that natural effects must have natural causes: natural causes sufficing, there is no need to invent any such unnatural ones as your god who himself, as I have told you already, would require to be explained and who would at the same time be the explanation of nothing; and that once ‘tis plain your god is superfluous, he is perfectly useless; that what is useless would greatly appear to be imaginary only, null and therefore non-existent; thus, to conclude that your god is a fiction I need no other argument than that which furnishes me the certitude of his inutility.

PRIEST - At that rate there is no great need for me to talk to you about religion.

DYING MAN - True, but why not anyhow? Nothing so much amuses me as this sign of the extent to which human beings have been carried away by fanaticism and stupidity; although the prodigious spectacle of folly we are facing here may be horrible, it is always interesting. Answer me honestly, and endeavor to set personal considerations aside: were I weak enough to fall victim to your silly theories concerning the fabulous existence of the being who renders religion necessary, under what form would you advise me to worship him? Would you have me adopt the daydreams of Confucius rather than the absurdities of Brahma, should I kneel before the great snake to which the blacks pray, invoke the Peruvian’s sun or Moses’ Lord of Hosts, to which Mohammedan sect should I rally, or which Christian heresy would be preferable in your view? Be careful how you reply.

PRIEST - Can it be doubtful?

DYING MAN - Then ‘tis egotistical.

PRIEST - No, my son, ‘tis as much out of love for thee as for myself I urge thee to embrace my creed.

DYING MAN - And I wonder how the one or the other of us can have much love for himself, to deign to listen to such degrading nonsense.

PRIEST - But who can be mistaken about the miracles wrought by our Divine Redeemer?

DYING MAN - He who sees in him anything else than the most vulgar of all tricksters and the most arrent of all imposters.

PRIEST - O God, you hear him and your wrath thunders not forth!

DYING MAN - No my friend, all is peace and quiet around us, because your god, be it from impotence or from reason or from whatever you please, is a being whose existence I shall momentarily concede out of condescension for you or, if you prefer, in order to accommodate myself to your sorry little perspective; because this god, I say, were he to exist, as you are mad enough to believe, could not have selected as means to persuade us, anything more ridiculous than those your Jesus incarnates.

PRIEST - What! the prophecies, the miracles, the martyrs - are they not so many proofs?

DYING MAN - How, so long as I abide by the rules of logic, how would you have me accept as proof anything which itself is lacking proof? Before a prophecy could constitute proof I should first have to be completely certain it was ever pronounced; the prophecies history tells us of belong to history and for me they can only have the force of other historical facts, whereof three out of four are exceedingly dubious; if to this I add the strong probability that they have been transmitted to us by not very objective historians, who recorded what they preferred to have us read, I shall be quite within my rights if I am Skeptical. And furthermore, who is there to assure me that this prophecy was not made after the fact, that it was not a strategem of everyday political scheming, like that which predicts a happy reign under a just king, or frost in wintertime? As for your miracles, I am not any readier to be taken in by such rubbish. All rascals have performed them, all fools have believed in them; before I’d be persuaded of the truth of a miracle I would have to be very sure the event so called by you was absolutely contrary to the laws of Nature, for only what is outside of Nature can pass for miraculous; and who is so deeply learned in Nature that he can affirm the precise point where it is infringed upon? Only two things are needed to accredit an alleged miracle, a mountebank and a few simpletons; tush, there’s the whole origin of your prodigies; all new adherents to a religious sect have wrought some; anf more extraordinary still, all have found imbeciles around to believe them.

DYING MAN - Your Jesus’ feats do not surpass those of Apollonius of Tyana, yet nobody thinks to take the latter for a god; and when we come to your martyrs, assuredly, these are the feeblest of all your arguments. To produce martyrs you need but to have enthusiasm on the one hand, resistance on the other; and so long as an opposed cause offers me as many of them as does yours, I shall never be sufficiently authorized to believe one better than the other, but rather very much inclined to consider all of them pitiable. Ah my friend! were it true that the god you preach did exist, would he need miracle, martyr, or prophecy to secure recognition? anf if, as you declare, the human heart were of his making, would he not have chosen it for the repository of his law? Then would this law, impartial for all mankind because eminating from a just god, then would it be found graved deep and writ clear in all men alike, and from one end of the world to the other, all men, having this delicate and sensitive organ in common, would also resemble eachother through the homage they would render the god whence they had got it; all would adore and serve him in one identical manner, and they would be as incapable of disregarding this god as of resisting the inward impulse to worship him. Instead of that, what do I behold throughout this world? As many gods as there are countries; as many different cults as there are different minds or different imaginations; and this swarm of opinions among which it physically impossible for me to choose, say now, is this a just god’s doing?

DYING MAN- Fie upon you, preacher, you outrage your god when you present him to me thus; rather let me deny him completely, for if he exists then I outrage him far less by my incredulity than do you through your blasphemies. Return to your senses, preacher, your Jesus is no better than Mohammed, Mohammed no better than Moses, and the three of them combined no better than Confucius, who did after all have some wise things to say while the others did naught but rave; in general, though, such people are all mere frauds: philosophers laughed at them, the mob believed them, and justice ought to have hanged them.

PRIEST - Alas, justice dealt only too harshly with one of the four.

DYING MAN - If he alone got what he deserved it was he who deserved it most richly; seditious, turbulent, calumniating, dishonest, libertine, a clumsy buffoon, and very mischievous; he had the art of overawing common folk and stirring up the rabble; and hencecame in line for punishment in a kingdom where the state of affairs was what it was in Jerusalem then. They were very wise indeed to get rid of him, and this perhaps is one case in which my extremely lenient and also extremely tolerant maxims are able to allow the severity of Themis; I excuse any misbehavior save that which may endanger the government one lives under, kings and their majesties are the only thing I respect; and whoever does not love his country and his king were better dead than alive.

>>3250218

Who wrote this?

do want.

>>3250239
>Jesus is no better than Mohammed, Mohammed no better than Moses
This analogy is wrong on so many levels.

PRIEST - But you do surely believe something awaits us after this life, you must at some time or another have sought to pierce the dark shadows enshrouding our mortal fate, and what other theory could have satisfied your anxious spirit, than that of the numberless woes that betide him who has lived wickedly, and an eternity of rewards for him whose life has been good?

DYING MAN - What other, my friend? that of nothingness, it has never held terrors for me, in it I see naught but what is consoling and unpretentious; all other theories are of pride’s composition, this one alone is of reason’s. Moreover, ‘tis neither dreadful nor absolute, this nothingness. Before my eyes have I not the example of Nature’s perpetual generations and regenerations? Nothing perishes in the world, my friend, nothing is lost; man today, worm tomorrow, the day after tomorrow a fly; is it not to keep steadily on existing? And what entitles me to be rewarded for virtues which are in me through no fault of my own, or again punished for crimes wherefore the ultimate responsibility is not mine? how are you to put your alleged god’s goodness into tune with this system, and can he have wished to create me in order to reap pleasure from punishing me, and that solely on account of a choice he does not leave me free will to determine?

PRIEST - You are free.

>>3250242
Marquis De Sade: http://www.sade-ecrivain.com/Dialogue-Between-a-Priest-and-a-Dying-Man.html

DYING MAN - Yes, in terms of your prejudices; but reason puts them to rout, and the theory of human freedom was never devised except to fabricate that of grace, which was to aquire such importance in your reveries. What man on earth, seeing the scaffold a step beyond the crime, would commit it were he free not to commit it? We are the pawns of an irresistable force, and never for an instant is it within our power to do anything but make the best of our lot and forge ahead along the path that has been traced for us. There is not a single virtue which is not necessary to Nature and conversely not a single crime which she does not need and it is in the perfect balance she maintains between the one and the other that her immense science consists; but can we be guilty for adding our weight to this side or that when it is she who tosses us onto the scales? no more so than the hornet who thrusts his dart into your skin.

PRIEST - Then we should not shrink from the worst of all crimes.

DYING MAN - DYING MAN - I say nothing of the kind. Let the evil deed be proscribed by law, let justice smite the criminal, that will be deterrent enough; but if by misfortune we do commit it even so, let’s not cry over spilled milk; remorse is inefficacious, since it does not stay us from crime, futile since it does not repair it, therefore it is absurd to beat one’s breast, more absurd still to dread being punished in another world if we have been lucky to escape it in this. God forbid that this be construed as encouragement to crime, no, we should avoid it as much as we can, but one must learn to shun it through reason and not through false fears which lead to naught and whose effects are so quickly overcome in any moderately steadfast soul. Reason, sir - yes, our reason alone should warn us that harm done our fellows can never bring happiness to us; and our heart, that contributing to their felicity is the greatest joy Nature has accorded us on earth; the entirety of human morals is contained in this one phrase: Render others as happy as one desires oneself to be, and never inflict more pain upon them than one would like to receive at their hands.

DYING MAN - There you are, my friend, those are the only principles we should observe, and you need neither god nor religion to appreciate and subscribe to them, you need only have a good heart. But I feel my strength ebbing away; preacher, put away your prejudices, unbend, be a man, be human, without fear and without hope forget your gods and your religions too: they are none of them good for anything but to set man at odds with man, and the mere name of these horrors has caused greater loss of life on earth than all other wars and all other plagues combined. Renounce the idea of another world; there is none, but do not renounce the pleasure of being happy and of making for happiness in this. Nature offers you no other way of doubling your existence, of extending it. - My friend, lewd pleasures were ever dearer to me than anything else, I have idolized tham all my life and my wish has been to end it in their bosom; my end draws near, six women lovelier than the light of day are waiting in the chamber adjoining, I have reserved them for this moment, partake of the feast with me, following my example embrace them instead of the vain sophistries of superstition, under their caresses strive for a little while to forget your hypocritical beliefs.

>>3250244
I don't think you understand the analogy.

>>3250255
>>3250253
>>3250249
>>3250245
>>3250239
Does spamming this thread serve a purpose to you. You have just single-handedly killed it. Im assuming that wasnt you intention and that its counterproductive. But then that could have been you intention. Food for thought.

>>3250271
I understand it but it assumes that someone ever thought that way. All men of god. Saying one is better than the other would be doubting god himself.

>>3250272
I wanted to kill it, because I'm sick of the redundancy of these metaphysical disputes.
Fuck you for wanting to persist in these redundant ontological arguments concerning the nature and existence, or lack thereof, of God.

tl;dr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera

meet the biological father of the christain figurehead

if you dont have significant insight into animism, shamanism, hinduism and buddism then dont bother pretending you have much knowledge of the religions of the world

>>3250279
Oh so its just your buttfrustration
Carry on.

>>3250278
No, it refers to lilliputian interpretations between the Abrahamic religions, and how each different doctrine values each "man of God" differently.

>>3250293
>values each "man of God" differently
But thats not how they work. They focus on one. That never implies greater value over another.
A common fallacy made by outsiders.

>>3250288
This isn't really a forum designated for theistic or atheistic controversy. I'm merely doing this to cure the beast's hunger. So that we can move on to more interesting topics.

>>3250300
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Christianity

>>3250307
You are not the first but do you kow why you are along. Because anonymous moderation is not approved and will get you banned as we all have been. As moot put if. Im a fan of ignore shit you dont like and leave the rest to the mods.
Youre only trying to 'move on' because this upsets you. But your tears are delicious. Carry on.

>>3250312
Which means... Different interpretations which we have among the same religion. But i wouldnt expect an outsider of religion to understand the conflict.

>>3250322
"But thats not how they work. They focus on one. That never implies greater value over another.
A common fallacy made by outsiders."
"Which means... Different interpretations which we have among the same religion. But i wouldnt expect an outsider of religion to understand the conflict."
Yes, and that means that each respective interpretation values religious figures and articles differently.

>>3250316
I honestly couldn't care less if I got banned, but in the meantime I'll just enjoy your butthurt about the "spam"
:)

Read "The Hero with a Thousand Faces"

>>3250342
The articles themselves are just interpretations. You opinion of them is only an opinion of the article. You have to read the fucking book. I know theyre long as hell but your opinion will mean nothing until you do.

>>3250352
It's not my opinion of them, it's the opinions of the sects and branches, and if you wish to affront someone, please do it more cleverly.

I don't believe in god and never will.
There's no reason,just like flying invisible unicorn sandwiches.
If you can't prove or disprove the existence, it doesn't exist at all.

>>3250361
Youre posting them as if they support your point. Theyre not here to affront so their interpretations mean nothing.

>>3250373
Is English even your first language?

>>3250364
Dont play in traffic or a car could kill you says the wary mother
>Why not
>Ive never been hit by a car
>Ive never seen anyone hit by a car
>Ive never seen anyone die from being hit by a car
>Ive never seen someone die
>Ive never died
>Show me someone die from being hit by a car Now
>Otherwise Im going to go play handball on the interstate during rush hour
Says the angsty 4 year old athiest.
Its pathetic really
>Ive never been hit

>>3250398
Straw man.
Besides I've seen the reports of people who have died.
And for that little boy it indeed doesn't exist until the moment it does happen.

>>3250416
Besides I've seen the reports of people who have died
>Ive heard stories too of how jesus walked on water
>Your 'reports' mean nothing
And thats my point. His disbelief is sad. I can only weep for you as you disregard the truth

>>3250427
Which truth?
Cars exist,existence of god can't be proven.

sage

>>3250435
Your reading comprehension cant be that weak. >The universe exist, the possibility of dying cant be proven.
Youre like the child saying he cant die because hes never died before. Its really sad. The existence of god cant be proven with modern science. Doesnt mean it cant be proven.

It's even impossible to verify the existence of yourself.
Do we even exist at all.

>>3248755
I like this. haven't read it all. scanned it. perhaps you could expand on it, taking on arguments from cosmology, ontology, pascal's wager, fine tuning as well as discussing the issue of 'free will' and 'miracles'. Just to make it a comprehensive retort.

>>3250444
Cogito ergo sum. You exist to yourself. Cant prove it to anyone else but yourself.

>>3250447
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalamo-cortico-thalamic_circuits

>>3250457
>He didnt understand the question and philosophy behind cogito ergo sum
Doesnt prove anything

>>3250457
> Some researchers propose

Yeah because that screams of 'Widely accepted consensus'(!)

>>3250398
Two forms of scepticism, rational and empirical. An empiricist needs to see experimental evidence (what you describe in your beautiful strawman) whereas a rationalist must be able to see a logical progression in mind (ie cars move fast on the interstate and there is reasonable probability that one of them could hit me, if that where to happen, I would come off substantially worse than the car).

>>3250457
your proof of it existence is

>>3250467
That doesnt mean you will die. He never said he didnt think getting hit by a car wouldnt hurt. Just that it wouldnt kill him.

>>3250447

Just because a famous philosopher (Descartes in this case) says something does not make it true. If you've read/heard anything about his Meditations, you'll know that they are all a priori "arguments". He relies almost solely upon logic to make his point.

Now, what if logic is "wrong"? Or if what we all perceive to be logic is actually an incorrect form of logic? To a person under hypnosis, it seems perfectly logic that 2+2=5, so we have no guarantee that what we perceive as logical is indeed logical.

In fact, to make any assessment of logic we have to assume the validity of logic, thereby creating a circular argument - which is itself illogical. If we start by assuming that logic, then we have no process by which to assess logic.

Hence, "I think therefore I am" is not some kind of universal truth: you cannot even "know" of your own existence.


Oh, and before someone says "logic must be true because it is true by definition" (I shit you not; people seem to come out with this a lot).. Okay; here's my retort: God exists because my definition of God is something that exists. tada! Reducio ad absurdum, because I am too lazy to explain the exact flaw.

>>3250474
it still applies

>>3250479
All you said was that the child should rationalize that it should hurt. Has nothing to do with death. It doesnt apply.

>>3250462
>>3250464
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626162/
http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(09)01043-5?script=true
Doesn't understand anything about Neurology.
Philistinefag detected.

>>3250477
You dont get the argument. It never says logic is correct. But the concept of self created exist on the logic its founded by.
That argument was made earlier in this thread and as the person pointed out. Its an axiom not illogical. Logic is how you understand the axioms.

>>3250477
Logic cannot be incorrect. It is merely a way of viewing things. You dont have a wrong opinion.

>>3250483
you're not even making a point anymore

>>3250502
the point that its sad that the child doesnt believe he will die and how youre doing the same thing.

>>3250494

I know it doesn't say "logic is correct". I am saying that it is not an axiom: the way in which Descartes demonstrates that it is is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes the validity of logic. You can't just say that an axiom is an axiom because it is - you have to use a logical process to demonstrate it, which, if logic is "wrong"/inaccurate etc etc., is flawed.

>>3250507
>how youre doing the same thing

lonope

>>3250514
cool denial bro

>>3250512
you dont understand logic. Logic interprets the axioms. It is not flawed, its not based on assumptions but possibilities. Logic cannot be incorrect.

>>3250498

If logic cannot be correct as it is just a way of viewing things, you are impyling that ways of viewing things cannot be correct? Which itself implies that there is no absolute truth, and that reality itself is subjective.

I would prefer it if you explained to me why my argument is incorrect, rather than just restating the opposing argument.

>>3250512
lrn2philosophy
The argument is not flawed.

>>3250529
>you are impyling that ways of viewing things cannot be correct
Correct. Because its your reality. Absolute truth. You imply that the truth doesnt change but thats irrelevant. The philosophy says the that if there was no way you can prove it. You just assume it therefore it doesnt prove anything. Cogito ergo sum doesnt make assumptions and therefore cannot be refuted.

>>3250522

>doesn't understand logic

"I think therefore I am" is not an axiom.

Explain to me how you know that logic cannot be flawed.

>>3250547
axioms are flawed, logic is not.

>>3250547
>"I think therefore I am" is not an axiom.
Which is why its flawless.

Just thought i should remind you that cogito ergo sum was created because the absolute truth is an axiom.

>>3250563
It's so flawless that Hume, Kierkegaard, and Nietszche criticized it.

>>3250576
They criticized the meaning of self that it proved. Semantic argument over the interpretation.

>>3250563

If it is not an axiom, then it is not self-evident and requires logical processes to demonstrate its truth.

>>3250554

To assess whether these logical processes are flawed, you must already assume the validity of logic! Which makes the entire argument circular.


>>3250477
>>3250477

Oh and btw I'm not saying that Descartes was an idiot or anything - I'm just pointing out that there is a certain amount of doubt associated with absolutely EVERYTHING - including our own existences. I am not criticising the Meditations only, as every argument ever made also has precisely the same flaw.

mfw /sci/ had a religion thread that was actually a serious intellectual discussion rather than a "hey atheists if your so smart... / atheists 1 christians 0 / only a theory (a geuss) / etc " thread.

mfw it happened when the americans are not up yet

coinicdence?

(also, mfw i have no face)

>>3250583
>self-evident
i dont think you understand axioms. Self evident are axioms we find true but are still assumptions.
>you must already assume the validity of logic
logic is an interpretation of axioms. Validity would imply a valid logic process which is an axiom.

Let me put it this way since you dont seem to understand. Math is not flawed. There is no difference between 2+2=5 and 2+2=4. Theyre both mathematical equations. One axiom we find self evident the other we dont. Both are logical.
Cogito ergo sum doesnt not make any assumptions so its logic without axioms.

if you want to disprove god, why would you use weak historical arguments? use philosophical arguments.
the fuck?

>>3250621
sure if you want to validate someones belief in god.

>>3248719
calling total fucking bullshit on that picture

>>3250608
Cogito ergo sum is commonly called Descarte's Axiom.

>>3250621
>implying (...)
what are you implying?

>>3250621
>weak
>historical arguments

Go choke on a cock or something, philosotard.

>>3250636
Well yeah since technically an axiom is just a belief. The point is that it not based on other beliefs.

>>3250648
it's based on "I think" (therefore i am)
if you don't think, then the argument isn't valid.

>>3250646
because it isn't directly relevant to the question of whether God exist or not,
It just shows the way by which the belief in God came about. It doesn't really tell you anything about God's existence.

People who argue from historical perspective is just missing the point.

>>3250655
You just lost me there. I never said you dont think. Just that youre are free to think otherwise. The argument is flawless. But youre free to not believe it.

"Why I am not a Christian". Can't beat the classics.

>>3250398
Kill youself

The obvious fallacy is that you can clearly see the logic that leads from playing in traffic to getting hit by cars

nosomuchwithreligion.jpg

>>3250704
you can, but the child cant.

>>3250704
And why is this. Since when do cars hit people. Where is the connection

"The Myth of the Magus" is about the development of magical thought, and has a chapter on Jesus demonstrating the parallels with contemporary magicians.

It's also a really interesting read even if you have zero interest in Christianity.