If your holy book fails to match reality ...

[Hockeycowboy]

If you read the myth he forgot to gave them the ability to know right from wrong. That point alone destroys any argument that you want to make to excuse the evil version of God in a literal reading of Genesis.

They had the faculty of conscience, that’s all we have, too.

The fact that they knew right from wrong, is evidenced by them not having a long set of rules given by God. They only had three... of those, only 1 was a prohibition.

They didn’t have to be told “don’t hurt the animals”.....badness wasn’t in their nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They had the faculty of conscience, that’s all we have, too.

The fact that they knew right from wrong, is evidenced by them not having a long set of rules given by God. They only had three... of those, only 1 was a prohibition.

They didn’t have to be told “don’t hurt the animals”.....badness wasn’t in their nature.

The myth not only says that they did not have "the faculty of conscience" but their actions immediately after eating the fruit tells us that they did not have it before.

Have you even read it?

And you keep forgetting that according to the myth that God was massively incompetent. Not only did he make them without a conscience. He put a tree that they were not to eat of where they could easily get at it and created and allowed the creature that convinced them to eat it into the Garden. That is at least three different ways that God was at fault.

The problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible is that it quickly refutes itself.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The myth not only says that they did not have "the faculty of conscience" but their actions immediately after eating the fruit tells us that they did not have it before.

Have you even read it?

And you keep forgetting that according to the myth that God was massively incompetent. Not only did he make them without a conscience. He put a tree that they were not to eat of where they could easily get at it and created and allowed the creature that convinced them to eat it into the Garden. That is at least three different ways that God was at fault.

The problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible is that it quickly refutes itself.

Was it the only tree in the Garden? No, there were many! It was a simple Law, easy to follow.

And being naked has nothing to do w/ conscience. (I suppose that was your intent, that their going around naked implied a lack of conscience? That’s silly. Half the Amazon tribes must lack a conscience, then.) There was nothing for them to fear, no expectation of harm or deceit.

Unfortunately, an angel developed selfish desires. It actually reveals that God doesn’t police His intelligent creation...we — and they (angels) — are free to make decisions & exercise our free will, while Jehovah God respects our privacy.

“The problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible is that it quickly refutes itself.”

Only when you don’t examine all of the details. See how they fit.
And the symbolic parts are easily discernible. Help from the Author is needed, of course. — Luke 10:21

I doubt you’ve asked Him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was it the only tree in the Garden? No, there were many! It was a simple Law, easy to follow.

And being naked has nothing to do w/ conscience. (I suppose that was your intent, that their going around naked implied a lack of conscience? That’s silly. Half the Amazon tribes must lack a conscience, then.) There was nothing for them to fear, no expectation of harm or deceit.

Unfortunately, an angel developed selfish desires. It actually reveals that God doesn’t police His intelligent creation...we — and they (angels) — are free to make decisions & exercise our free will, while Jehovah God respects our privacy.

“The problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible is that it quickly refutes itself.”

Only when you don’t examine all of the details. See how they fit.
And the symbolic parts are easily discernible. Help from the Author is needed, of course. — Luke 10:21

I doubt you’ve asked Him.

It does not matter if there were other trees in the garden. Why even bring that up?

By the way, you should be thankful that we know the story is a myth. Your version of God screwed the pooch royally. Why not treat the story as a morality tale? It was never meant to be taken literally.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Oh yes, the universal cop-out.

That is the Universal Truth about God's Word.

It is us that can not understand.

Regards Tony

 

[Augustus]

Show us data, and we will change! That is intellectual
honesty.

Don't be silly. As a group, we are as irrational as everyone else and equally as contemptuous of evidence which suggests we are wrong (in general, not specifically in relation to the existence of gods).

When humans are emotionally or ideologically attached to a belief, they are rarely rational or intellectually honest, at least that's what the evidence suggests. Many of us seem to think that this applies only to other people though, and not to ourselves.

 

[Audie]

“jesus is a door”..... A door? Is this a reference to John 14:6?

“slavery is groovy”..... Never read that it was groovy. That it was a part of society, 2000 yrs.ago +? Yes. Was it started by Jehovah? No.

“Pi is 3.000”..... I assume you’re referring to 1 Kings 7. To think the ancients knew no math, is very naive.

There are many explanations for this difference...only if one is predisposed, reflecting a closed mind, would they not be willing to consider possible reasons. Let me ask you this: would a basin that size, made of metal, require reinforcement? Turning a lip / brim outward would help to accomplish that, and could account for the seeming discrepancy.

Prior to Archimedes of the 3rd Cent. B.C.E., measurements were made using straight lines.
Hence:

The circumfrence was 30 cubits
A cubit was 18 inches
So the circumference was 540 inches.
Divide that by pi; you get a diameter of 172 inches.
Then add the handbreadth thickness of 4 inches x 2 = 8 inches
Total width is 180 inches
Divide that by 18 to convert it back to cubits
Answer is 10 cubits.

It fits the Biblical record.

My comment was in response to your statement-

Yes, it 'flies'....from the Bible's own words

So, Jesus is a lamb and a door, among other things.

Them's the blble's own translated words.

You gonna believe it, baa baa door?

OR, you can pick and choose and interpret.
Maybe it does not mean what is says in
"its own words"? It does say lamb... but
baa baa?

As for Pi, honestly.
Just accept that the measurements
are approximate.
Precision, uniform weights and measures were
unknown.

So-what you or any one else has is their
chosen interpretations of a book that is,
at best, approximately true in places.

 

[Audie]

Don't be silly. As a group, we are as irrational as everyone else and equally as contemptuous of evidence which suggests we are wrong (in general, not specifically in relation to the existence of gods).

When humans are emotionally or ideologically attached to a belief, they are rarely rational or intellectually honest, at least that's what the evidence suggests. Many of us seem to think that this applies only to other people though, and not to ourselves.

Ok a deal. I will speak for myself.

Show me the data, and I will change my mind.

You speak for yourself.

Researchers, investigators, jurors, doctors,
etc are expected to uphold the honour of their
professions and at least do their utmost
at intellectual integrity, a highest value.

We note that the opposite is true of theists.
Faith in spite of all is the virtue.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People are free to believe whatever they want to believe as long as it hurts no-one.

Sure, but the OP is asking about how one can justify believing mere words over the facts of reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Never head of him before looking at the article. Seeing his bigoted bull is a horror i must live with for the rest of my life

So, you don't know about him and the infamous banana clip?

Go to youtube and look for "ray banana man comfort" and watch the banana clip.
And no, it's not satire or parody. It's not a sketch. At the time he made that clip, he was very serious.

Since then he's realised how epicly stupid it was. And ironic too, considering the banana he's holding is a human creation and the result of centuries of cultivation. Or Evolution through artificial selection, if you will. He backpeddled on it when people pointed this out to him with a big smile on their face. But the damage was done. The clip was mirrored on a multitude of channels happily shared and liked all over the world.

The thing has become a legendary meme in the online atheist community

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I knew Cameron had gone off the rails years ago, but I had never heard of the crocoduck.

Crocoduck - Wikipedia

Richard Dawkins has a tie with crockoducks on it.

hahaha

 

[dybmh]

Researchers, investigators, jurors, doctors,
etc are expected to uphold the honour of their
professions and at least do their utmost
at intellectual integrity, a highest value.

We note that the opposite is true of theists.

I have been accused recently of not having intellectual integrity. Im not asking you to speak on behalf of this person. But... Can u in general describe the elements that diminish intellectual integrity?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

People are free to believe whatever they want to believe as long as it hurts no-one.

And other people are completely free to rebuke their ideas, call foul, and request justification for why they hold their views. And, in turn, they are free to answer or not, engage or not, and face the consequences of any of it with respect to their treatment by society at large.

Isn't freedom grand?

 

[Audie]

I have been accused recently of not having intellectual integrity. Im not asking you to speak on behalf of this person. But... Can u in general describe the elements that diminish intellectual integrity?

Offa the top of me head, lets see-

If the goal is pure objectivity, then-

One must guard against any sort of bias-
a hoped-for outcome to an experiment, say.

Amy sort of stacking the deck, such as
looking for how to "prove: an idea; that is
a predetermined outcome.

Failure to do due diligence in considering
all possible alternatives.

Any failure in logic / reasoning / analysis

That sort of thing. Needless to say, I suppose,
that pure objectivity is impossible, like any
other ideal.

My observation about the creationist position
is that none that we have here display more
than a shallow, facile sort of grasp of science
in general, ToE / historical geology in particular.

As in, not qualified to offer much of an opinion.

I compare it to the kid learning fractions trying
to critique calculus. It is ridiculous.

The list of their failings is long, including as
above, a failure to study, looking only at
openly one sided and blatantly dishonest
sources for info..

If shoe doesnt fit, then to heck with those
who say it does, and vice versa wise.

 

[ChristineM]

So, you don't know about him and the infamous banana clip?

Go to youtube and look for "ray banana man comfort" and watch the banana clip.
And no, it's not satire or parody. It's not a sketch. At the time he made that clip, he was very serious.

Since then he's realised how epicly stupid it was. And ironic too, considering the banana he's holding is a human creation and the result of centuries of cultivation. Or Evolution through artificial selection, if you will. He backpeddled on it when people pointed this out to him with a big smile on their face. But the damage was done. The clip was mirrored on a multitude of channels happily shared and liked all over the world.

The thing has become a legendary meme in the online atheist community

Thanks, just seen it and remembered seeing it before.other than a good laugh it is highly unmemorable and hope to forget it again as soon as possible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In several discussions here recently, religious participants appear to privilege scripture over reality.

Creationist organizations even state this openly in their "statements of faith"

Recent examples here involve the Noachian flood and claims that ordinary processes can transmute elements.

How can people honestly sustain such intellectual dishonesty?

If your holy book says the moon is made of cheese, will you take crackers when you go there?

Not all Christians need to consider the Bible to be an infallible and literal retelling of actual events. For many of us, there is no need to deify scripture in order to believe in God on faith. There is no need to chafe against the evidence of reality and lie to ourselves in order to support unsubstantiated belief as a real historical events.

I recognize that 'inspired' does not mean 'dictated'. It is my view that the stories of Genesis are allegories. Noah and the flood is an allegory with no evidence that supports its actual occurrence in history. The message that is being conveyed is no less valuable, because it is allegory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Offa the top of me head, lets see-

If the goal is pure objectivity, then-

One must guard against any sort of bias-
a hoped-for outcome to an experiment, say.

Amy sort of stacking the deck, such as
looking for how to "prove: an idea; that is
a predetermined outcome.

Failure to do due diligence in considering
all possible alternatives.

Any failure in logic / reasoning / analysis

That sort of thing. Needless to say, I suppose,
that pure objectivity is impossible, like any
other ideal.

My observation about the creationist position
is that none that we have here display more
than a shallow, facile sort of grasp of science
in general, ToE / historical geology in particular.

As in, not qualified to offer much of an opinion.

I compare it to the kid learning fractions trying
to critique calculus. It is ridiculous.

The list of their failings is long, including as
above, a failure to study, looking only at
openly one sided and blatantly dishonest
sources for info..

If shoe doesnt fit, then to heck with those
who say it does, and vice versa wise.

I consider that some of the examples of the critique of calculus as repetition of critiques from external sources that the kid learning fractions does not understand, but is repeated as if that kid is an expert and came up with it.

 

[Audie]

Not all Christians need to consider the Bible to be an infallible and literal retelling of actual events. For many of us, there is no need to deify scripture in order to believe in God on faith. There is no need to chafe against the evidence of reality and lie to ourselves in order to support unsubstantiated belief as a real historical events.

I recognize that 'inspired' does not mean 'dictated'. It is my view that the stories of Genesis are allegories. Noah and the flood is an allegory with no evidence that supports its actual occurrence in history. The message that is being conveyed is no less valuable, because it is allegory.

Anyone who reads the flood as an actual event is
showing horrible disrespect for the god they claim
to worship.

 

[Augustus]

Ok a deal. I will speak for myself.

Show me the data, and I will change my mind.

Most people you accuse of intellectual dishonesty will be thinking exactly the same thing. How many people do you think would agree that they are less intellectually honest than the average person?

While it's easy enough on things we don't care a great deal about, for something you are emotionally invested in, you'd be more likely to find a reason to dismiss the evidence. For a belief that is closely tied to your sense of identity, this is almost a certainty.

You speak for yourself.

I assume my brain works in generally the same way as other humans, in which case I am to some extent biased, hypocritical and generally blissfully unaware of it.

I certainly know I've been so in the past, as it is always easier to identify such things with hindsight, especially when we have changed our beliefs.

We operate under the conceit that we are far more rational than other people because we can see their biases, and often assume that they must also be aware of them. As we are not always aware of ours, we assume we don't have them.

This is just the way our brains work. They didn't evolve for objective and dispassionate consideration of evidence, but for survival as part of a group.

You can believe you are in some way special and have transcended the cognitive limitations of the human mind, that would be pretty irrational though.

Researchers, investigators, jurors, doctors,
etc are expected to uphold the honour of their
professions and at least do their utmost
at intellectual integrity, a highest value.

And lawyers often base their strategy on the assumption of bias and the inability of jurors to be objective. When allowed, jury selection is one of the most critical parts of the trial. They assume biases, and are right to do so.

Still, most jurors will believe they have intellectual integrity and an unbiased mind.

As for investigators, an air crash investigator generally has little emotional incentive to find one way or the other, a criminal investigator on the other hand may be a lot more emotionally involved in the case and is more likely to be influenced by initial assumptions. Miscarriages of justice happen all the time for this reason.

 

[Audie]

Most people you accuse of intellectual dishonesty will be thinking exactly the same thing. How many people do you think would agree that they are less intellectually honest than the average person?

While it's easy enough on things we don't care a great deal about, for something you are emotionally invested in, you'd be more likely to find a reason to dismiss the evidence. For a belief that is closely tied to your sense of identity, this is almost a certainty.



I assume my brain works in generally the same way as other humans, in which case I am to some extent biased, hypocritical and generally blissfully unaware of it.

I certainly know I've been so in the past, as it is always easier to identify such things with hindsight, especially when we have changed our beliefs.

We operate under the conceit that we are far more rational than other people because we can see their biases, and often assume that they must also be aware of them. As we are not always aware of ours, we assume we don't have them.

This is just the way our brains work. They didn't evolve for objective and dispassionate consideration of evidence, but for survival as part of a group.

You can believe you are in some way special and have transcended the cognitive limitations of the human mind, that would be pretty irrational though.



And lawyers often base their strategy on the assumption of bias and the inability of jurors to be objective. When allowed, jury selection is one of the most critical parts of the trial. They assume biases, and are right to do so.

Still, most jurors will believe they have intellectual integrity and an unbiased mind.

As for investigators, an air crash investigator generally has little emotional incentive to find one way or the other, a criminal investigator on the other hand may be a lot more emotionally involved in the case and is more likely to be influenced by initial assumptions. Miscarriages of justice happen all the time for this reason.

If you do not want to get what I am saying, you will not.

People can claim intellectual honesty as it suits them.
When I see the same person show the opposite, well,
then I am not impressed.

You do not need to tell me about emotional attachment,
self deception, etc as if I did not know those things.

However we evolved, it is possible to improve
if one tries.

I do not think I am "special", you can cut that out.

That people such as you listed-investigators or
whoever not always living up to the highest
possible standards of their duty, that is the
human condition.

I did specify that ideals are not achievable.
Some among us have a very specific duty
to do their best at dispassionate objectivity
and often enough it comes back to bite
them, hard, if they do not. A reputation
is hard won, easily ruined. Cheats and
frauds are not going to be successful in the
long run.

You did not address my observation that
for researchers etc, a highest value is to
do their utmost to be as objective as
they possibly can.

AND, that for Christians, for one sort of
theist, the opposite is true as it applies
to their faith.

That was my topic, hot whether it is hard
to do well, or that some fall short of
perfection.

ETA-Most people you accuse of intellectual dishonesty will be thinking exactly the same thing
Nope.
That is an absurd thing for you to say. See if you can see why.