“But the Bible's contents are unique (qualitatively different to all other religions)”
Please provide one example from the bible that demonstrates its unique qualitative property.
“None of which are legitimate complaints.”
They are legitimate complaints if it is claimed that they were dictated by the infallible creator of the universe. But I take your point that most are somewhat trivial. However I think the pi error is colossal for the supreme mathematical Pooh-Bah. Also fowls do not creep and hare do not chew the cud and mustard seeds are not the smallest of all seeds. It is harder to explain how Jonah was in the belly of a fish for 3 days and survived. Also the world is neither flat nor stationary and doesn’t have corners. The account of the flood is impossible to scientifically explain and diseases are not caused by demons nor does prayer heal illness (both beliefs have contributed to untold human misery). The point is that all these are understandable errors for bronze-age authors, but not for god. I expect a higher standard from a god. And we haven’t considered all the internal inconsistencies and unfulfilled prophesies and described miracles.
Please provide one piece of evidence that proves the bible could not have been authored by men of that time.
“Perhaps we 21st century humans will go down in history as being a bunch of primitive savages, because our literature speaks of the beauty of a sunset, which will show how we ignorantly thought the sun revolved around the earth. If we had any scientific knowledge at all, our literature ought to be speaking instead of the beauty of the earth's rotation bringing our location on the earth's surface to the point of tangent with the sun's rays, and the resultant selective atmospheric absorption and scattering of optical wavelengths. (let the reader understand)”
And your point is?.... or just obstrufication! I thought we were discussing the scientific veracity of the bible. How is the interpretation modern literature relevant? Why all the mystery?
“The Bible puts Christianity worlds apart from all other religions too”
I replied: “It borrows so much from other religions and its directives are often immoral to our standards. I cannot understand how you reconcile this to get to your current belief position.”
Now you state “The Bible says “don't divorce” and “stay faithful to your spouse for life”. My experience is that these principles are part of a winning formula for real contentment, and it seems that society is suffering significantly for thinking these moral principles are obsolete.”
How does the bible put christianity worlds apart from all other religions? Please provide objective evidence.
I’m not saying the bible doesn’t contain any virtuous advice. I’m saying it doesn’t contain any moral advice that isn’t also suggested in other religious texts or teachings (predating the bible) or isn’t obvious to our naturally evolved consciousness. Furthermore it contains many divine commands that are unquestionably immoral by today’s standards (I can cite evidence but I think you already know these). So I don’t disagree with your statement about being faithful to your spouse if that is your mutual agreement. I could argue about the appropriateness of divorce in many circumstances. But how do you reconcile the existence of the immoral and unscientific content with the claim that the author is the infallible creator and caretaker of mankind?
Another puzzling fact is the degree to which christianity borrows from other religions. The following concepts all pre-date christianity and could be claimed to be borrowed: young and beardless shepherd saving mankind by performing sacrifical deeds, virgin birth, celebration of the birth of god on the winter solstice, sharing of presents, the use of (Christmas) trees with candles, and nativity scenes that included shepherds attracted by a sacred light, a first human couple having been created, a major flood, mankind's redemption resulting from a sacrificial death followed by the god's ascent to heaven, resurrection through sacrifice, a Last Supper linked with the blood sacrifice whose symbolic recreation by eating bread and wine provided salvation for all worshippers, purification through baptism, Sunday to be sacred, asceticism - resist sensuality and to abstain from eating certain foods, charity, emphasis of a rock, a cosmic rivalry between a God and Satan figure, good and bad angels, importance of an immortal soul that survives the body, a judgment day, when mankind would once and for all be divided into those accepted in heaven and those consigned to eternal punishment in hell, hell in the underworld and heaven in the sky, where God was located.
“Surely, according to evolution, we should be discovering every imaginable form of intermediates (well, a lot anyway) on the spectrum between reptiles and birds, wherever some ancient localised mudslide blesses us with a snapshot of life at that time and place.”
The theory of evolution by natural selection requires no such thing. It is surprising that any fossils exist at all given the conditions necessary for them to form. The fact that they do exist and they support the theory and they also agree with evidence from other fields of science and they can be used in predictive studies (your other blog contributor “Faith” is quite mistaken in her beliefs on this) points clearly to one conclusion if you choose to employ rational thought.
“Ah faith... faith says that eventually these intermediates will be found.”
Firstly, I have some expectation that they exist, but it is unlikely they will be found and frankly I do not require it. I cannot think of another theory in biology that has more evidence in support of it. Had the theory not directly questioned existing religious beliefs there would be no debate about its veracity at all.
Secondly, I could interpret this statement to be extremely offensive. Or maybe you don’t know what the word “faith” means.
Faith by definition is a belief not based on reason or logic or on evidence but often held contrary to the evidence. The belief held, often with absolute certainty, without any scientifically verifiable supporting evidence makes such belief irrational. It may be that there is absolutely nothing, no evidence whatsoever that would shake your belief in a god. For belief in a supernatural god is based on faith. People that seek to understand the universe via the application of reason and logic and do not believe with certainty in things that cannot be supported by credible evidence. Those who remain open-minded to the possibility they may be wrong and adapt their thinking to new evidence are n my opinion most likely to be atheists. That is, they hold the opinion that there is insufficient evidence for anything of supernatural existence or consequence in the universe. Atheism is a position reached by critical analysis and rational thought, not faith.
“But the Bible's contents are unique (qualitatively different to all other religions)”
Please provide one example from the bible that demonstrates its unique qualitative property.
“None of which are legitimate complaints.”
They are legitimate complaints if it is claimed that they were dictated by the infallible creator of the universe. But I take your point that most are somewhat trivial. However I think the pi error is colossal for the supreme mathematical Pooh-Bah. Also fowls do not creep and hare do not chew the cud and mustard seeds are not the smallest of all seeds. It is harder to explain how Jonah was in the belly of a fish for 3 days and survived. Also the world is neither flat nor stationary and doesn’t have corners. The account of the flood is impossible to scientifically explain and diseases are not caused by demons nor does prayer heal illness (both beliefs have contributed to untold human misery). The point is that all these are understandable errors for bronze-age authors, but not for god. I expect a higher standard from a god. And we haven’t considered all the internal inconsistencies and unfulfilled prophesies and described miracles.
Please provide one piece of evidence that proves the bible could not have been authored by men of that time.
“Perhaps we 21st century humans will go down in history as being a bunch of primitive savages, because our literature speaks of the beauty of a sunset, which will show how we ignorantly thought the sun revolved around the earth. If we had any scientific knowledge at all, our literature ought to be speaking instead of the beauty of the earth's rotation bringing our location on the earth's surface to the point of tangent with the sun's rays, and the resultant selective atmospheric absorption and scattering of optical wavelengths. (let the reader understand)”
And your point is?.... or just obstrufication! I thought we were discussing the scientific veracity of the bible. How is the interpretation modern literature relevant? Why all the mystery?
“The Bible puts Christianity worlds apart from all other religions too”
I replied: “It borrows so much from other religions and its directives are often immoral to our standards. I cannot understand how you reconcile this to get to your current belief position.”
Now you state “The Bible says “don't divorce” and “stay faithful to your spouse for life”. My experience is that these principles are part of a winning formula for real contentment, and it seems that society is suffering significantly for thinking these moral principles are obsolete.”
How does the bible put christianity worlds apart from all other religions? Please provide objective evidence.
I’m not saying the bible doesn’t contain any virtuous advice. I’m saying it doesn’t contain any moral advice that isn’t also suggested in other religious texts or teachings (predating the bible) or isn’t obvious to our naturally evolved consciousness. Furthermore it contains many divine commands that are unquestionably immoral by today’s standards (I can cite evidence but I think you already know these). So I don’t disagree with your statement about being faithful to your spouse if that is your mutual agreement. I could argue about the appropriateness of divorce in many circumstances. But how do you reconcile the existence of the immoral and unscientific content with the claim that the author is the infallible creator and caretaker of mankind?
Another puzzling fact is the degree to which christianity borrows from other religions. The following concepts all pre-date christianity and could be claimed to be borrowed: young and beardless shepherd saving mankind by performing sacrifical deeds, virgin birth, celebration of the birth of god on the winter solstice, sharing of presents, the use of (Christmas) trees with candles, and nativity scenes that included shepherds attracted by a sacred light, a first human couple having been created, a major flood, mankind's redemption resulting from a sacrificial death followed by the god's ascent to heaven, resurrection through sacrifice, a Last Supper linked with the blood sacrifice whose symbolic recreation by eating bread and wine provided salvation for all worshippers, purification through baptism, Sunday to be sacred, asceticism - resist sensuality and to abstain from eating certain foods, charity, emphasis of a rock, a cosmic rivalry between a God and Satan figure, good and bad angels, importance of an immortal soul that survives the body, a judgment day, when mankind would once and for all be divided into those accepted in heaven and those consigned to eternal punishment in hell, hell in the underworld and heaven in the sky, where God was located.
“Surely, according to evolution, we should be discovering every imaginable form of intermediates (well, a lot anyway) on the spectrum between reptiles and birds, wherever some ancient localised mudslide blesses us with a snapshot of life at that time and place.”
The theory of evolution by natural selection requires no such thing. It is surprising that any fossils exist at all given the conditions necessary for them to form. The fact that they do exist and they support the theory and they also agree with evidence from other fields of science and they can be used in predictive studies (your other blog contributor “Faith” is quite mistaken in her beliefs on this) points clearly to one conclusion if you choose to employ rational thought.
“Ah faith... faith says that eventually these intermediates will be found.”
Firstly, I have some expectation that they exist, but it is unlikely they will be found and frankly I do not require it. I cannot think of another theory in biology that has more evidence in support of it. Had the theory not directly questioned existing religious beliefs there would be no debate about its veracity at all.
Secondly, I could interpret this statement to be extremely offensive. Or maybe you don’t know what the word “faith” means.
Faith by definition is a belief not based on reason or logic or on evidence but often held contrary to the evidence. The belief held, often with absolute certainty, without any scientifically verifiable supporting evidence makes such belief irrational. It may be that there is absolutely nothing, no evidence whatsoever that would shake your belief in a god. For belief in a supernatural god is based on faith. People that seek to understand the universe via the application of reason and logic and do not believe with certainty in things that cannot be supported by credible evidence. Those who remain open-minded to the possibility they may be wrong and adapt their thinking to new evidence are n my opinion most likely to be atheists. That is, they hold the opinion that there is insufficient evidence for anything of supernatural existence or consequence in the universe. Atheism is a position reached by critical analysis and rational thought, not faith.