LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices



Poll: You are a...
Poll Options
You are a...

You must log in and have one post to vote in this poll. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
Results will be available after the polls close.

The nominees are:

firm believer
Deist
Theist
Agnostic
Atheist

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 10-10-2011, 04:48 PM   #3631
moxieman99
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Dabble, but latest used are Fedora 13 and Ubuntu 10.4.1
Posts: 413

Rep: Reputation: 88

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed9 View Post
I want to make admitting to belief in God as embarrassing for an adult as admitting they believe in Santa Claus, but I will defend to the utmost your right to believe in Santa Claus or God.
Why? Someone's admission of a belief in God does not harm you. Acting on that belief, however, such as by trying to remove the teaching of evolution from school because "that's not what the Bible sez," is where I draw the line. If someone wants to belief, however, fine. I see no need to denigrate it.
 
Old 10-10-2011, 04:55 PM   #3632
moxieman99
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Dabble, but latest used are Fedora 13 and Ubuntu 10.4.1
Posts: 413

Rep: Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
If a significant segment of the world, in virtually every place, has relied on a particular book, the Bible, for over 4 millenia, as an authoritative evidential document, then it is clearly not for me to prove the Bible but in fact--

The burden of proof is on those who insist that it cannot be admitted as evidence in any and every case.

I'm not saying that because they have relied on it then it's evidence. I'm saying as such, the burden of proof is on you, before you dismiss any and every reference to it blanketly. This the agnathiests fail to do, or to even attempt.
The Bible never portrayed itself as a book of science. It portrays itself as a book of faith. If you wish to extend it into science (literalism and infallibility) then the burden is on you to justify the extension and using it in ways never intended by the Bible itself.
 
Old 10-10-2011, 04:58 PM   #3633
moxieman99
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Dabble, but latest used are Fedora 13 and Ubuntu 10.4.1
Posts: 413

Rep: Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SL00b View Post
That may be, but that's hardly supportive of the statement that public education is based entirely on the Bible.
I agree. Like I said, "some" history. Ol' Blue got it with some distortion.
 
Old 10-10-2011, 05:01 PM   #3634
moxieman99
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Dabble, but latest used are Fedora 13 and Ubuntu 10.4.1
Posts: 413

Rep: Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
Is that the crux of this idea of "trolling?" I'm here to impress people?
No. The ostentation comes in any public display, or insistance that one's holy books be used in public places, such as schools.

Trust me on this one; you've not impressed anyone here.
 
Old 10-10-2011, 05:03 PM   #3635
bluegospel
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2010
Distribution: centOS
Posts: 404

Rep: Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by moxieman99 View Post
The Bible never portrayed itself as a book of science. It portrays itself as a book of faith. If you wish to extend it into science (literalism and infallibility) then the burden is on you to justify the extension and using it in ways never intended by the Bible itself.
Everything cannot be distilled purely into science. The Bible portrays itself as a book applicable to every area of life, including (certainly not majoring in) science. As such, it is not fairly, blanketly, precluded as evidence of the facts of life. Those who do so are prejudiced.
 
Old 10-10-2011, 05:12 PM   #3636
SL00b
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: LA, US
Distribution: SLES
Posts: 375

Rep: Reputation: 112Reputation: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by moxieman99 View Post
I agree. Like I said, "some" history. Ol' Blue got it with some distortion.
I'd say it came with enough distortion to make Jimi Hendrix' jaw drop.
 
Old 10-10-2011, 05:15 PM   #3637
SL00b
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: LA, US
Distribution: SLES
Posts: 375

Rep: Reputation: 112Reputation: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
Quite wreckless. Supposing there is one living eternal God (which IMFirmO is self-evident). In that case it would be quite foolish to say something like what you just said because, it's probable, he did create the universe, in which case you've just made a spectacle of yourself before the whole creation, not to mention God.
Oh, boy. Hello, Pascal's Wager.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
Agreed. Particularly good word choice, a key
Thank you. Obviously the statement worked as intended, because I would never contend that human logic is the only key. An extremely effective one, yes.

You know what's not a key? Searching your feelings like some jedi trying to consult with his midichlorians for what he KNOWS is true. You really shouldn't do that anymore. It's obviously not working out. It's time to try another way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
God created humans to live a joint life with God. The degree to which a human works together with God or resists him, in large part determines their ultimate success or failure. In other words, if the clay has a mind completely of its own, God's best effort, be it perfect, doesn't compensate for their defiance.
Who put that defiance in the clay? God.
 
Old 10-10-2011, 05:16 PM   #3638
reed9
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 653

Rep: Reputation: 142Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
If a significant segment of the world, in virtually every place, has relied on a particular book, the Bible, for over 4 millenia, as an authoritative evidential document, then it is clearly not for me to prove the Bible but in fact--
This is an argument from popularity and an argument from antiquity.

Quote:
The burden of proof is on those who insist that it cannot be admitted as evidence in any and every case.
Aside from the fallacious way you arrived at this conclusion, we have in fact given you reasons why the Bible cannot be considered evidence for God. It is, in essence, begging the question - to accept the Bible evidence for God means tacitly accepting that God wrote and/or inspired the Bible first. Circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. And, as I said before, there is no reason for someone who doesn't already believe to choose he Bible over another religion's stories, as mentioned with the Veda.
 
Old 10-10-2011, 05:17 PM   #3639
SL00b
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: LA, US
Distribution: SLES
Posts: 375

Rep: Reputation: 112Reputation: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
Everything cannot be distilled purely into science. The Bible portrays itself as a book applicable to every area of life, including (certainly not majoring in) science. As such, it is not fairly, blanketly, precluded as evidence of the facts of life. Those who do so are prejudiced.
The Bible is packed with LOLscience, but we've covered this before.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
 
Old 10-10-2011, 05:24 PM   #3640
reed9
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 653

Rep: Reputation: 142Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by moxieman99 View Post
Why? Someone's admission of a belief in God does not harm you. Acting on that belief, however, such as by trying to remove the teaching of evolution from school because "that's not what the Bible sez," is where I draw the line. If someone wants to belief, however, fine. I see no need to denigrate it.
Because we have millions of people who do act. As I said before, we have suicide bombers, murders of abortion doctors, "Kill the Gays" legislation in Uganda, the entire Republican Party in thrall to the Religious Right. And how can someone honestly believe and not act? If someone truly and with all of their heart believes that almost everyone around them is going to hell, to suffer literal eternal damnation, or literally believes that Obama might be the antichrist, or any of the other insane things people believe, surely they would act on that belief?
 
Old 10-10-2011, 06:26 PM   #3641
bluegospel
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2010
Distribution: centOS
Posts: 404

Rep: Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SL00b View Post
Who put that defiance in the clay? God.
Wrong. God created everything, which was initially good, including free will--which is 100% good. Like a glass of water. A glass of water is arguably good. It's not bad, it's good. If I swish the water around in the glass it basically stays in the glass. It moves about, but basically stays put in the glass. Imagine water had a mind of its own (I realize this is silly). That's not necessarily bad. For this illustration God decided to create water to have a mind of its own, to move about as it pleases, and in his estimation this was good.

Now, you have two among other scenarios:

1) All the water everwhere converges on the surface of the earth. The result--all life on earth, wiped out.

2) Water is well behaved, acting with just the properties we now know it to have. It's useful and beneficial for life.

That's free will! It's good as God creates it. The course the creatures take who exercise it may be good, may be bad. As God created it, it's good.

It's like my own home-grown argument against the classic defense of marijuana (forgive me for indulging)--typical claim: "God created it!"

bluegospel: "So he created it! He didn't roll it up and light it! He created poisonous berries too, but not for humans to eat!"

He created free will for a purpose. We choose either to conform to that purpose or defy it.

Last edited by bluegospel; 10-10-2011 at 06:31 PM. Reason: clarification: "it" to "that purpose" in last sentence
 
Old 10-10-2011, 06:42 PM   #3642
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
A glass of water is arguably good. It's not bad, it's good.
False. It is neither good nor bad. You're thinking in binaries which is false dichotomy. Glass of water is neither good nor bad. It simply exists. Its existence means nothing and has no moral vaule. It is not "good". It simply is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
That's free will! It's good as God creates it. The course the creatures take who exercise it may be good, may be bad. As God created it, it's good.
Then the god does not love its creation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
He created free will for a purpose. We choose either to conform to it or defy it.
That's not the free will. It is using death threats to force obedience. "Obey or die". Which implies non-omnipotence, by the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
He created poisonous berries too, but not for humans to eat!"
Actually, you might want to check the link provided by Sloob (this time he happened to actually have a point).
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
See #16. Also If I were you I'd think how to address multiple issues pointed out in this list. I'm especially interested in part that talks about dragons, unicorns, giants and immortal worms. Plus there are multiple mistakes. I think you asked somebody to show you mistakes in bible, and this list does just that.

Last edited by SigTerm; 10-10-2011 at 06:43 PM.
 
Old 10-10-2011, 11:33 PM   #3643
moxieman99
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Dabble, but latest used are Fedora 13 and Ubuntu 10.4.1
Posts: 413

Rep: Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post
Everything cannot be distilled purely into science. The Bible portrays itself as a book applicable to every area of life, including (certainly not majoring in) science.
First, nobody said that everything could be distilled into science. The problem comes when someone tries to portray something as science when it isn't. That's why the Bible cannot be allowed into science class and cannot be allowed to decide which science theories should be taught in science class.

Second, science is not an "area of life." It is a subject of intellectual pursuit. Intellectual curiousity is an area of life. Understanding the Bible will certainly help people be good, moral, citizens, and teach them intellectual humility, but it will do nothing about science.
 
Old 10-11-2011, 12:07 AM   #3644
DJ Shaji
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: India
Distribution: Debian Squeeze, Fedora 17
Posts: 440
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 80
I would like to mention one thing that has been by and large ignored in this discussion; supposing that the world was in fact created by God ( which many contributors to this thread believe) the logical question that follows this assumption would be - which one? Every religion of the world has credible texts that authenticates their belief system. How can you determine which one is true? And only one can be, for all religions are mutually exclusive. So, even if those who believe do defeat us atheists, the battle is but half won.
 
Old 10-11-2011, 06:11 AM   #3645
aizkorri
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Basque Country
Distribution: Fedora 14, Ubuntu 14.04
Posts: 425
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Shaji View Post
Every religion of the world has credible texts that authenticates their belief system. How can you determine which one is true?
In some religions, if you pray to the wrong god you go to hell, so, given two religions that say that thing about god, both of them claiming they are right...

everyone go to hell... :-)

Last edited by aizkorri; 10-11-2011 at 07:45 AM. Reason: my great english... everyone "goes"
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 07:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 02:28 PM
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 9 02-13-2003 03:37 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration