|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 16, 2023 23:14:03 GMT
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 17, 2023 10:08:12 GMT
Even this aside, I don't really see how not killing each other would make them less evil anyway. Personally, I think it's better for Nazis to murder one another than murder innocents.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2023 11:59:19 GMT
In my long life and wide travels, including numerous visits to a variety of very religious people, I never met even one person in real life who believed the Bible should be taken literally. As already mentioned, in 2022, 49% of Americans view the Bible as inspired by God, but not everything in it is to be taken literally. {1} 29% say the Bible is a collection of fables, history and moral precepts recorded by man. And 20% of Americans say it is the actual word of God to be taken literally. news.gallup.com/poll/394262/fewer-bible-literal-word-god.aspx#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2049%25%20of%20Americans,God%20to%20be%20taken%20literally. You ignoring such a respected and easily found survey which directly contradicts your characteristically sweeping and ill informed claims will not make it go away. I guess you need to travel more widely then? " ... passages taken together strongly imply that Jesus took Genesis 1 as literal history describing creation in six 24-hour days. Jesus said clearly that He created in six days. And He even did something He didn’t do with most of Scripture—He wrote it down Himself. How clearer and more authoritative can you get than that?" answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/did-jesus-say-he-created-in-six-literal-days/ {2} In Islam(for fundamentalists at least) there is some debate - at least as to whether Allah created the world in 6 or 8 days: islamqa.info/en/answers/31865/were-the-heavens-and-the-earth-created-in-six-days-or-eight {3}Guess you need to make the acquaintance of more religious people? But perhaps you would care to tell us how long you think it took your deity to create the earth then - given that you, presumably, think this what happened? Evasion as always - just as when I last asked you this - will be noted. Once again, when I make any comment about the authors of the Bible being prophets or otherwise, please feel free to raise this. "The Röhm Purge was the murder of the leadership of the SA (Storm Troopers), the Nazi paramilitary formation led by Ernst Röhm. {4} The murders took place between June 30 and July 2, 1934. The ruling elites and ultimately Hitler saw the SA as a threat to their hold on power. " encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/roehm-purge en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives Guess you need to mug up on the bloody struggles within the Nazis too? lol And let's not forget that one of my other examples, Stalin's Russia there the purges and disappearances witness communists killing communists (just ask Trotsky)... As for failing to demonstrate, please check back on all of that which I wrote last time, you appear to have overlooked it. I love the smell of irony in the morning. {5} I have long discovered that that is not a very fruitful exercise, but it can be entertaining. But where's the fun in that? {6} {1} It was not my intention to give you the impression that it is a matter of a vote. It most certainly was not my intention and it remains no matter of a vote. How many people would vote for Trump and how many for Biden? Now how many of those two groups have the first clue about any science or religion? You'd never guess, so I'll have to tell you, too many of them have no clue. There is no voting in science. There is almost no voting in religion (How meaningful would your claim be if there were voting in religion anyway?) What you have done here is commit the "logical fallacy" of argumentum ad populum. You are suggesting that if some popular notion exists that the Bible is to be taken literally then it must be. Since it is obvious that the Bible is replete with allegory, parables, and other content that is clearly not literal, how do those small percentages of unofficial people tell where the "literal" part begins and ends? Does it not require the Holy Spirit? If the Bible could be taken literally and anyone can read any Bible, how is it the "world cannot receive" it? {2} Absolutely nothing in Mark suggests any duration for the "beginning" whether six days or six billion years. Nothing else on that website does either. It is clearly a website intended to undermine the religion I showed you. {3} ... when I make any comment about the authors of the Quran ... {4} If I had a dollar for every time some retarded atheist kid on the internet thought a single counter example disproved a trend I would be quite rich. I am certain not every German citizen nor every Nazi participated in, nor would have approved of, such a "purge." Without more details I cannot know whether such a "purge" was simply a form of "capital punishment" anyway. The fact remains that early primitive societies had absolutely no rules against murder or rape at all including murder and rape of each other in their own "society." If you have no serious brain damage you should be able to know what history records. The Nazis were almost that bad, but not that bad. The Nazis are also not typical of modern society, which of course I still maintain is far less evil than in the dawn of history, even if you include the rare Satan worshiper. {5} ... when I make any comment about the authors ... {6} You may rest assured that I won't shut this board down. My philosophy is to let you rave on so the world knows you're mad. I cannot speak for the rest of the world though. On another matter, argumentum ad populum is not you're only failure of rhetoric. You seem to believe that anything insulting is the "logical fallacy" of argumentum ad hominem. The logical fallacy would occur if I tried to say all atheists are flawed because you are. That is not what I do. I am only pointing out your failures without trying to extend them to others.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 17, 2023 19:38:20 GMT
{1} It was not my intention to give you the impression that it is a matter of a vote. It most certainly was not my intention and it remains no matter of a vote. That's good, especially as in this case where things are a matter of a well reported survey, not a vote. If you wish the difference explained, then just let me know. Well no. This is the fallacy that something which is popular must therefore be true just because of that - but a survey can have unpopular results (such as the present one does, at least for you). The results of a survey are likely to be true or accurate because it is conducted professionally and statistically meaningful; no one has claimed that the Gallup survey is necessarily true because it reveals that a literal belief in the Bible is popular. In fact quite the opposite: if you had read my reply you would have seen that more (29%) say the Bible is a collection of fables while just 20% say it is the actual word of God to be taken literally. I was simply disproving your bald claim that " Religion cannot be taken literally " when some clearly do just that and have substantiated that. I hope that helps. Indeed; and 29% of Americans apparently know this as I have reported. I have no idea; but that is not the issue here and is just a problem for the faithful. One might, though ask it the other way round: how do you tell where the fables end and the literalness starts? Is the idea that God created us all just a creation fable? (You know, I suspect I know the answer to that.) If of course discerning between the literal and not is a matter for the Spirit how come you are able to tell that "religion is not literal"? Have you been drinking too much of the Holy Spirit? Again, this is something best addressed to those obstinate fundamentalists is it not? As a soft atheist I don't hold a candle for any side, I just correct your glaring errors. But it is contradictions like this which makes theology such fun... {2} There is however a famously clear time period in Genesis. I am aware some creationists claim the "days" there represent long time periods or ages. but some do not. Is there any reason, btw, why your supposed all-powerful God could not have created everything in a week if it wanted too? Your views of answeringenesis are something you are fully entitled to - but it is not the only literalist site by far. It is interesting to note too that the seventh day of creation refers to the same day found in the fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11). “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” And "But perhaps you would care to tell us how long you think it took your deity to create the earth then - given that you, presumably, think this what happened? Evasion as always - just as when I last asked you this - will be noted." ... Evasion noted. Oh I see; when you claimed that "Religion cannot be taken literally" it was just in regards to one religion then? (The casual reader here might wish to know that I have an autistic brother. Arlon likes to work in his offensive ad hominem when he can in our exchanges. Which is neither funny nor an argument for anything except perhaps his crassness.) Whether or not the majority approved, making the claim true, would make your point here an argumentum ad populum. Remember that? I do. You simply said that "Nazis did not kill Nazis" - when they did in the infamous "Knight of the Long Knives". Substantiation of this? Since we really do not have any specific information on prehistoric humans or those who left no written records (if this is what you mean), it’s impossible to compare to modern crime statistics. Plus also you have the question of what counts as murder and what counts as battle deaths. Or what counts as rape and what counts as culturally accepted sexual assault (eg thebiblefornormalpeople.com/children-and-virgins-as-spoils-of-war-and-the-character-of-god/ ). In regards to rape and the rules against it, you are wrong again: see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rape In many early societies, murder was, yes, often viewed as a matter of personal revenge or retribution, and often considered a legitimate way to settle disputes. In other cases, murder was used as a form of punishment for crimes such as theft, adultery, or treason. But there was still a rules structure. See my comment about the "retard" jibe above. I think many would say the Nazis were pretty plain bad, and you do not even address the evils of Stalinist Russia. Essentially as notions of "evil" can be seen as subjective as are ideas of morality, then all we are doing is comparing opinions. But you have not shown that evil is of a "different sort" today (which I think was your original claim, not that current evil is "less"). Can you, say. point to any one of the ten commandments which are not broken today? And as mentioned before when this same claim came up, the obvious point is that more people are alive today than ever before; so, quantitively speaking, even if the average individual was today 'less evil' (assuming we could even ever find an objective measure of that) there is more evil about generally, just by dint of pure numbers. No idea what you are on about here. That is very kind of you. An ad hominem is, quite simply attacking and insulting the messenger not the message in lieu of argument.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 17, 2023 22:43:21 GMT
{1} It was not my intention to give you the impression that it is a matter of a vote. It most certainly was not my intention and it remains no matter of a vote. That's good, especially as in this case where things are a matter of a well reported survey, not a vote. If you wish the difference explained, then just let me know. Well no. This is the fallacy that something which is popular must therefore be true just because of that - but a survey can have unpopular results (such as the present one does, at least for you). The results of a survey are likely to be true or accurate because it is conducted professionally and statistically meaningful; no one has claimed that the Gallup survey is necessarily true because it reveals that a literal belief in the Bible is popular. In fact quite the opposite: if you had read my reply you would have seen that more (29%) say the Bible is a collection of fables while just 20% say it is the actual word of God to be taken literally. I was simply disproving your bald claim that " Religion cannot be taken literally " when some clearly do just that and have substantiated that. I hope that helps. Indeed; and 29% of Americans apparently know this as I have reported. I have no idea; but that is not the issue here and is just a problem for the faithful. One might, though ask it the other way round: how do you tell where the fables end and the literalness starts? Is the idea that God created us all just a creation fable? (You know, I suspect I know the answer to that.) If of course discerning between the literal and not is a matter for the Spirit how come you are able to tell that "religion is not literal"? Have you been drinking too much of the Holy Spirit? Again, this is something best addressed to those obstinate fundamentalists is it not? As a soft atheist I don't hold a candle for any side, I just correct your glaring errors. But it is contradictions like this which makes theology such fun... {2} There is however a famously clear time period in Genesis. I am aware some creationists claim the "days" there represent long time periods or ages. but some do not. Is there any reason, btw, why your supposed all-powerful God could not have created everything in a week if it wanted too? Your views of answeringenesis are something you are fully entitled to - but it is not the only literalist site by far. It is interesting to note too that the seventh day of creation refers to the same day found in the fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11). “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” And "But perhaps you would care to tell us how long you think it took your deity to create the earth then - given that you, presumably, think this what happened? Evasion as always - just as when I last asked you this - will be noted." ... Evasion noted. Oh I see; when you claimed that "Religion cannot be taken literally" it was just in regards to one religion then? (The casual reader here might wish to know that I have an autistic brother. Arlon likes to work in his offensive ad hominem when he can in our exchanges. Which is neither funny nor an argument for anything except perhaps his crassness.) Whether or not the majority approved, making the claim true, would make your point here an argumentum ad populum. Remember that? I do. You simply said that "Nazis did not kill Nazis" - when they did in the infamous "Knight of the Long Knives". Substantiation of this? Since we really do not have any specific information on prehistoric humans or those who left no written records (if this is what you mean), it’s impossible to compare to modern crime statistics. Plus also you have the question of what counts as murder and what counts as battle deaths. Or what counts as rape and what counts as culturally accepted sexual assault (eg thebiblefornormalpeople.com/children-and-virgins-as-spoils-of-war-and-the-character-of-god/ ). In regards to rape and the rules against it, you are wrong again: see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rape In many early societies, murder was, yes, often viewed as a matter of personal revenge or retribution, and often considered a legitimate way to settle disputes. In other cases, murder was used as a form of punishment for crimes such as theft, adultery, or treason. But there was still a rules structure. See my comment about the "retard" jibe above. I think many would say the Nazis were pretty plain bad, and you do not even address the evils of Stalinist Russia. Essentially as notions of "evil" can be seen as subjective as are ideas of morality, then all we are doing is comparing opinions. But you have not shown that evil is of a "different sort" today (which I think was your original claim, not that current evil is "less"). Can you, say. point to any one of the ten commandments which are not broken today? And as mentioned before when this same claim came up, the obvious point is that more people are alive today than ever before; so, quantitively speaking, even if the average individual was today 'less evil' (assuming we could even ever find an objective measure of that) there is more evil about generally, just by dint of pure numbers. No idea what you are on about here. That is very kind of you. An ad hominem is, quite simply attacking and insulting the messenger not the message in lieu of argument.
The difference between a survey and a vote is not relevant here.
Your claim that, "The results of a survey are likely to be true or accurate because it is conducted professionally and statistically meaningful" is not consistent with your attitude about "ad hominem" that flaws may not be considered at all. How can your survey be professional if it rejects criticism?
You probably are not capable of understanding what this means, but no one is asking you whether the Bible is to be taken literally. It is not for you to say. I can explain further, but I already showed you that the Holy Spirit is required to understand the Bible, according to the Bible. Do not attempt to blame your brother for your own obvious failure.
Survey or vote makes no difference, the boiling point of water was not found, is not found, by either.
Did you know that a major problem in the world today is that people (like you) who typically lose arguments in religion and science try to "vote" (or survey) their way to success? The problem is especially bad in the United States.
That's right! Social media is the problem, not the solution, and thanks to people like you.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 17, 2023 23:14:09 GMT
The difference between a survey and a vote is not relevant here. It is, since you still apparently confuse the two when suggesting a possible Argument from Popularity, as I explained carefully for you last time. I am not surprised, since we discussed ad hominems at a completely different part of our conversation. But I can see why you need to confuse matters here. Nowhere do I say that the survey by Gallup (not 'my' survey) is above possible criticism. But nowhere either have you taken issue with the methodology or the results - so your comment is quite besides the point. Indeed. The issue is rather that, with your usual sweeping casualness you have asserted "Religion cannot be taken literally" when I have shown that, by some, it is. And you still haven't told us in what stretch of time you think your alleged deity created the world. You do believe that He literally did that, right? Lol Since in saying that the Bible 'cannot be taken literally' you attempt to understand or interpret the (Christian only now, it seems) religion for us all, it appears that you are not following your own sage advice. Do not keep being personally offensive. And? A survey refers to a technique of gathering information regarding a variable under study, from the respondents of the population. Experiment implies a scientific procedure wherein the factor under study is isolated to test a hypothesis. A vote is a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot. I hope that helps. Remember when I told you that a vote and survey are not the same, just above? I do. Here you appear to be wandering off at a tangent again. Shall I put this out to a vote?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 18, 2023 12:41:56 GMT
The difference between a survey and a vote is not relevant here. It is, since you still apparently confuse the two when suggesting a possible Argument from Popularity, as I explained carefully for you last time. I am not surprised, since we discussed ad hominems at a completely different part of our conversation. But I can see why you need to confuse matters here. Nowhere do I say that the survey by Gallup (not 'my' survey) is above possible criticism. But nowhere either have you taken issue with the methodology or the results - so your comment is quite besides the point. Indeed. The issue is rather that, with your usual sweeping casualness you have asserted "Religion cannot be taken literally" when I have shown that, by some, it is. And you still haven't told us in what stretch of time you think your alleged deity created the world. You do believe that He literally did that, right? Lol Since in saying that the Bible 'cannot be taken literally' you attempt to understand or interpret the (Christian only now, it seems) religion for us all, it appears that you are not following your own sage advice. Do not keep being personally offensive. And? A survey refers to a technique of gathering information regarding a variable under study, from the respondents of the population. Experiment implies a scientific procedure wherein the factor under study is isolated to test a hypothesis. A vote is a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot. I hope that helps. Remember when I told you that a vote and survey are not the same, just above? I do. Here you appear to be wandering off at a tangent again. Shall I put this out to a vote? The dependence on a vote has a critical flaw. It cannot change the truth. The "majority" absolutely can be mistaken. What can be done about a mistaken majority? Very little can be done when the voters will not hear reason. We have to wait for the voters to see for themselves how mistaken they are and it could be a time before they choke on their own stink. That is what is happening in politics today. Did you know? In the United States it is so bad already the nation is teetering on bankruptcy. So sure, put it to a vote. you aren't capable of anything else but blindly following some herd.
Your "argument" such as it is, says that I am wrong to say the Bible cannot be taken literally because some number of people thinks it should. (That is a "logical fallacy" whether a survey or a vote.) Indeed one of us must be wrong, and it is you. You do not appear to understand how very offensive of you that is to disparage people who are clearly better than you are. In addition to that you expect others not to offend you, even though you are the one most deserving of offense.
Here are the reasons, once again, you are wrong.
1) In order to be literal, communication absolutely requires that any experiences be common to the speaker and the audience. A person blind from before birth who has never seen the color green absolutely cannot have any exacting or literal communication about that color. Where the speaker and the audience both have experienced the color green already, one may say to the other, "it was literally green," and be understood. The audience has an experience to attach to those words. In order for the Bible to be literal throughout it could never speak of anything beyond the common day to day experiences people have. Is that your point? That the Bible must be about hanging clothes out to dry? It cannot be about something beyond common experience? How obvious does it have to be that you're wrong before you admit it?
2) The Bible itself says plainly that it is not to be taken literally. Your comment that we should not take that literally is not in the least amusing and beneath the dignity of an adult with healthy understanding.
3) Your complaint as already noted that some number of people believe the Bible should be taken literally is a "logical fallacy." No one asked you to decide whether it should be taken literally. It is not yours to say. If you wrote a Bible, then you could tell people whether it was intended to be taken literally.
While I might brush off your offenses against myself, there are your offenses against proper schooling. You present yourself as having the authority of a teacher and then undermine what schools have done to facilitate good communication. You "teach" error. You're a real villain. That is different from merely being mistaken. That is evil. You are the worst example of the evil, but not the only one. Social media in general is replete with false teachers defying established methods. It is apparently because they do not think for themselves but blindly follow a herd. It's not "TikTok," it's tick, tick, tick.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 18, 2023 13:20:57 GMT
Even this aside, I don't really see how not killing each other would make them less evil anyway. Personally, I think it's better for Nazis to murder one another than murder innocents. Pardon me for believing in something better than helter skelter, but I do believe there is better and furthermore there is much better. Some very early societies found in the Bible were helter skelter about it all with no rules at all. "Well then won't they kill themselves and solve the problem?" You know, some people say "anything is possible." I however doubt that would be much of a solution.
The huge mistake, or one of many huge mistakes, FilmFlaneur is making in citing the Röhm Purge as an example of Nazis killing "themselves" is that it was not themselves. It was far more likely former Nazis who turned against the group. They decided they had, or remembered their, rules and applied them as they understood them. Some ancient societies in the Bible were not that at all, they were helter skelter.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 18, 2023 14:16:40 GMT
Even this aside, I don't really see how not killing each other would make them less evil anyway. Personally, I think it's better for Nazis to murder one another than murder innocents. Perhaps you can see that if they did kill each other that would make them more evil.
There appears to be confusion about what the word "themselves" means. Suppose that while killing the "evil" Nazis the followers of Röhm killed other followers of Röhm. Does that help make it clear what is meant by "themselves"? I am not saying the Nazis were very sane, they were the worst racists. I am only pointing out how much more crazy helter skelter is.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 19, 2023 9:55:40 GMT
Aha. Arlon's a Manson groupie, like I always suspected. Dat 'splains everything.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 19, 2023 14:47:24 GMT
Aha. Arlon's a Manson groupie, like I always suspected. Dat 'splains everything.
How do you figure that? Dartboard?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 19, 2023 17:08:17 GMT
Aha. Arlon's a Manson groupie, like I always suspected. Dat 'splains everything.
How do you figure that? Dartboard?
When dealing with you, that's as good as anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 19, 2023 17:27:20 GMT
How do you figure that? Dartboard?
When dealing with you, that's as good as anything else.
What is your game anyway? Are you trying to make sure nothing accurate gets out through the internet? "Turn off that internet and do your homework, kids"?
If so, it's working great. But seriously, would you like to be shut down? That might happen, only next time to more people who should be shut down.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 19, 2023 18:15:38 GMT
Some very early societies found in the Bible were helter skelter about it all with no rules at all. As usual this is asserted without any substantiation - either here, or the last time it was claimed. This is simply not the case, as anyone who cares to read about the events of the Night of the Long Knives will quickly discover. "Chancellor Adolf Hitler, urged on by Hermann Göring and Heinrich Himmler, ordered a series of political extrajudicial executions intended to consolidate his power and alleviate the concerns of the German military about the role of Ernst Röhm and the Sturmabteilung (SA), the Nazis' paramilitary organization.." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives But even if we ignore historical facts, about Nazi history and then also the depredations of Stalin's state against its own people, then so what? How does this help Arlon's claims about evil "being different" in modern times? And why does it matter in light of the OP? It is uncertain. Arlon still has to offer any support for this view of history. EG King Hammurabi was the first king of Babylon, and he was the ruler who was responsible for conquering Mesopotamia and creating the first Babylonian Empire. Hammurabi was known for his fair laws and style of ruling. He wanted his people to obey his laws out of respect, not out of fear. This ruler managed his court by clearly outlining the laws so that all of the people knew them. Hammurabi's laws are called the Code of Hammurabi. The Code of Hammurabi includes a wide range of statutes covering everything from family relationships to contracts to inheritances to crimes and punishments or The Code of Ur-Nammu , the oldest known law code surviving today. It is from Mesopotamia and is written on tablets, in the Sumerian language c. 2100–2050 BCE. etc en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_legal_codes In addition, some historians argue that The Decalogue was modelled on the suzerainty treaties of the Hittites (and other Mesopotamian Empires). So we await a list of those 'helter skelter' societies mentioned. But once again we are also left wondering: what all this has to do with the original question "If there is no God, does what is right or wrong change?"
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 19, 2023 18:51:47 GMT
When dealing with you, that's as good as anything else.
What is your game anyway? Are you trying to make sure nothing accurate gets out through the internet? "Turn off that internet and do your homework, kids"?
If so, it's working great. But seriously, would you like to be shut down? That might happen, only next time to more people who should be shut down.
Yes, that's my game. Your genius has laid bare my nefarious plotting . Nice try at a threat. Next time I'll try to remember to be impressed.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 19, 2023 19:18:17 GMT
The dependence on a vote has a critical flaw. It cannot change the truth. Indeed ; which is why I insist on the differentiation between a vote and survey and have only quoted from a survey. The suspicion here is that instead of addressing the results of same which clearly disprove your claim that "Religion cannot be taken literally" you are now wasting everyone's time. So you will excuse me if I find something better to do after this exchange in regards to this, in future I will just refer you back to this paragraph as an aide memoire..As carefully explained last time , and again in this exchange at least twice, I am not telling you 'what to believe'. I just report what a major survey reports that many do. Your insistence otherwise betrays either poor reading skills or a love of convenient non-sequiturs . Please stop repeating an untruth and deliberately misreading what I say. Is this repeated misleading really all you have? *With this in mind, I am still waiting for the amount of time you think the deliberate supernatural took to create the earth - since, given by your criticisms before (of abiogenesis for instance), it appears that you think a biblical creation was, er, a literal event. You know, that which ought not to be so taken? You know I will keep asking... I am hard to offend with an argument. It is just that so far, thrice, you have lately resorted to personal ad hominems in lieu of an argument. And I don't think that makes you better than me, since you raise the matter. The Bible cannot be about something beyond common experience? Really? Job 26 : Behold, God is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable." etc 'God works in mysterious ways', apologists often say especially when they need a get-out-of-jail-free card. Have you thought this through? Was the Resurrection something within a "common experience"? Ought it to be taken literally? As usual you are raising questions best addressed to those whom I have shown are literalists and so your claim is wrong, which is still the case. I only report their propensity to believe in what they do so you may wish to address you gripes to them. But it is best practice to take religious people at their word, even though believers may be wrong. And so I do. Those who are still following this exchange will note I didn't comment on that passage at all, so it appears you are mistaken again - although it is always gratifying to discover another implied contradiction within in the Bible. Please quote where I have called fundamentalism a "logical fallacy". In fact it is you who condemns them. Quite right and - for the last time - I never do. It is you who wishes to deny the ability of many to read the Bible literally, not I. No, unlike your own habit I reference the authority of others when fitting and useful . See the difference? I think here one can see just how fast and loose, subjectively and arbitrary you speak of 'evil'. In fact it is real helter skelter thinking.... You are wandering again; but at least we get a probable inkling as to the theme of your well-respected and heavily read internet column this week LOL
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 21, 2023 10:18:45 GMT
The dependence on a vote has a critical flaw. It cannot change the truth. Indeed ; which is why I insist on the differentiation between a vote and survey and have only quoted from a survey. The suspicion here is that instead of addressing the results of same which clearly disprove your claim that "Religion cannot be taken literally" you are now wasting everyone's time. So you will excuse me if I find something better to do after this exchange in regards to this, in future I will just refer you back to this paragraph as an aide memoire..As carefully explained last time , and again in this exchange at least twice, I am not telling you 'what to believe'. I just report what a major survey reports that many do. Your insistence otherwise betrays either poor reading skills or a love of convenient non-sequiturs . Please stop repeating an untruth and deliberately misreading what I say. Is this repeated misleading really all you have? *With this in mind, I am still waiting for the amount of time you think the deliberate supernatural took to create the earth - since, given by your criticisms before (of abiogenesis for instance), it appears that you think a biblical creation was, er, a literal event. You know, that which ought not to be so taken? You know I will keep asking... I am hard to offend with an argument. It is just that so far, thrice, you have lately resorted to personal ad hominems in lieu of an argument. And I don't think that makes you better than me, since you raise the matter. The Bible cannot be about something beyond common experience? Really? Job 26 : Behold, God is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable." etc 'God works in mysterious ways', apologists often say especially when they need a get-out-of-jail-free card. Have you thought this through? Was the Resurrection something within a "common experience"? Ought it to be taken literally? As usual you are raising questions best addressed to those whom I have shown are literalists and so your claim is wrong, which is still the case. I only report their propensity to believe in what they do so you may wish to address you gripes to them. But it is best practice to take religious people at their word, even though believers may be wrong. And so I do. Those who are still following this exchange will note I didn't comment on that passage at all, so it appears you are mistaken again - although it is always gratifying to discover another implied contradiction within in the Bible. Please quote where I have called fundamentalism a "logical fallacy". In fact it is you who condemns them. Quite right and - for the last time - I never do. It is you who wishes to deny the ability of many to read the Bible literally, not I. No, unlike your own habit I reference the authority of others when fitting and useful . See the difference? I think here one can see just how fast and loose, subjectively and arbitrary you speak of 'evil'. In fact it is real helter skelter thinking.... You are wandering again; but at least we get a probable inkling as to the theme of your well-respected and heavily read internet column this week LOL "I am still waiting for the amount of time you think the deliberate supernatural took to create the earth" The reason I do not attempt to discover the amount of time is that the information would have no value whatsoever, much like every word you have posted on this board. I would be happy to leave you and amyghost to your reviled internet column.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 21, 2023 11:49:13 GMT
Indeed ; which is why I insist on the differentiation between a vote and survey and have only quoted from a survey. The suspicion here is that instead of addressing the results of same which clearly disprove your claim that "Religion cannot be taken literally" you are now wasting everyone's time. So you will excuse me if I find something better to do after this exchange in regards to this, in future I will just refer you back to this paragraph as an aide memoire..As carefully explained last time , and again in this exchange at least twice, I am not telling you 'what to believe'. I just report what a major survey reports that many do. Your insistence otherwise betrays either poor reading skills or a love of convenient non-sequiturs . Please stop repeating an untruth and deliberately misreading what I say. Is this repeated misleading really all you have? *With this in mind, I am still waiting for the amount of time you think the deliberate supernatural took to create the earth - since, given by your criticisms before (of abiogenesis for instance), it appears that you think a biblical creation was, er, a literal event. You know, that which ought not to be so taken? You know I will keep asking... I am hard to offend with an argument. It is just that so far, thrice, you have lately resorted to personal ad hominems in lieu of an argument. And I don't think that makes you better than me, since you raise the matter. The Bible cannot be about something beyond common experience? Really? Job 26 : Behold, God is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable." etc 'God works in mysterious ways', apologists often say especially when they need a get-out-of-jail-free card. Have you thought this through? Was the Resurrection something within a "common experience"? Ought it to be taken literally? As usual you are raising questions best addressed to those whom I have shown are literalists and so your claim is wrong, which is still the case. I only report their propensity to believe in what they do so you may wish to address you gripes to them. But it is best practice to take religious people at their word, even though believers may be wrong. And so I do. Those who are still following this exchange will note I didn't comment on that passage at all, so it appears you are mistaken again - although it is always gratifying to discover another implied contradiction within in the Bible. Please quote where I have called fundamentalism a "logical fallacy". In fact it is you who condemns them. Quite right and - for the last time - I never do. It is you who wishes to deny the ability of many to read the Bible literally, not I. No, unlike your own habit I reference the authority of others when fitting and useful . See the difference? I think here one can see just how fast and loose, subjectively and arbitrary you speak of 'evil'. In fact it is real helter skelter thinking.... You are wandering again; but at least we get a probable inkling as to the theme of your well-respected and heavily read internet column this week LOL "I am still waiting for the amount of time you think the deliberate supernatural took to create the earth" The reason I do not attempt to discover the amount of time is that the information would have no value whatsoever, much like every word you have posted on this board. I would be happy to leave you and amyghost to your reviled internet column. If that means you're finally giving us a break from your tedious twaddle, great. I don't even require that you explain WTF you're referring to.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 21, 2023 20:05:53 GMT
"I am still waiting for the amount of time you think the deliberate supernatural took to create the earth" The reason I do not attempt to discover the amount of time is that the information would have no value whatsoever ... Evasion noted. Here's another one for you: if as you insist "religion cannot be taken literally" then does that mean you think that the Resurrection is just a fable, perhaps to impress potential converts?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 22, 2023 11:09:04 GMT
"I am still waiting for the amount of time you think the deliberate supernatural took to create the earth" The reason I do not attempt to discover the amount of time is that the information would have no value whatsoever ... Evasion noted. Here's another one for you: if as you insist "religion cannot be taken literally" then does that mean you think that the Resurrection is just a fable, perhaps to impress potential converts? Best guess is that Arlon hails from the theological pragmatist's viewpoint--it really doesn't matter if any of this stuff is true or not; what matters is impressing the flock with the notion that it's true enough for them to need to be obedient to it out of fear of the consequences if they aren't. And it has the plus side of being good for them as a sort of moral tonic, since, left to their own devices there's no question they'd simply revert to the sinful savages they naturally are (this in spite of centuries of pre-Christian philosophically guided societies to the contrary, and also a rather dim view of their god's supposed greatest creation in its natural state). And I imagine that the appeal of being one of the administrators, with all the supernatural power and authority believers vest in them, has a powerful attraction for Arlon's sort. I don't know what he does IRL for a living, but I have a feeling he's either in some sort of authoritarian position where he daily expects his word to be obeyed to the letter--or he'd very, very much like to be in such a position. Either way, that sort has little problem with exploiting scripture as a practical tool to exercise dominance, with very little concern to themselves whether they manifest more than a superficial level of belief in the literal truth of any of it.
|
|