1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Looking For A Smart Atheist

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Earthling, Mar 5, 2019.

  1. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    10,477
    Ratings:
    +9,891
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Nope. That is NOT what the verses actually said in context. One was pointing out how we should not be afraid of people, who cannot destroy a soul, but should fear God, who can. Another verse was in the middle of a number of verses that talked about when souls would be destroyed and which others would live. In yet another, it was suggested that hell is the way that souls are destroyed.

    Now, you are correct that these verses show that some souls are killed/destroyed. But they also show that some are not.

    Well, one of the verses directly compares fearing humans, who cannot destroy souls as opposed to fearing God, who can.

    OK, it is possible for a soul to be destroyed. According to the Bible.

    OK. That was very likely to be the early viewpoint. Later, we see the idea of an afterlife being proposed along with some souls being kept alive after the person dies.

    Again, why do you expect consistency across different books of the Bible?
     
  2. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,329
    Ratings:
    +341
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The answer is quite simple.

    The Bible's claim that God gave us all the plants for food is incorrect.
     
    #222 Tiberius, Mar 8, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  3. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,678
    Ratings:
    +2,396
    sorry in your pew. atheists are southern Baptists without jesus, who cares other than other uhhh. oh never mind.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,770
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Ah, I see.

    Got bored, didn't 'ya? I can relate to that.
     
  5. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,069
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    Perhaps I'm a little confused by your original request. To me, it seemed to necessitate a literal interpretation of the scripture. Here's your request again:

    God gave us every plant for food. What about Canabis sativa? Is it okay to eat (or smoke) that plant? How about the opium poppy (Papaver somniferum), coca plant (Erythroxylum coca), or the peyote cactus (Lophophora williamsii)? Did God give us these plants to eat too? It would seem that he did, since there are no exceptions given in Genesis 1:29.
    (SOURCE: Looking For A Smart Atheist)

    Your question assumes that there were no exceptions given, and so you asked if - under that specific interpretation - it was justifiable to consume (or just generally use) the type of plants you listed, but now you seem to have changed the circumstances and context of what is written to mean only "what plants were in the garden" and that it is "only logical to conclude" that God didn't mean that they could eat "literally everything in the garden".

    So, which is it? Does the Bible give exceptions or doesn't it, and if there are exceptions, how do you determine them without the Bible specifying what they are?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,429
    Ratings:
    +926
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I'll just quote Richard Dawkins, as a nice reminder: "We SHOULD be open minded.... but not SO open minded, that our brains are falling out"

    :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,429
    Ratings:
    +926
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That makes no sense.
    You're basically asking to first assume the soul is real to then be able to conclude that the soul is real.
     
  8. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,770
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    First of all, it would seem isn't definite. Secondly, the exceptions are in the garden, not in your back yard. The garden was a different environment than what it was outside the garden, and different than what it is today, as of after Adam's sin. You determine what the exceptions might have been in the garden by what would have been potentially harmful.
     
  9. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,770
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    No, you don't have to ever assume anything. I wan't you to determine, with as much accuracy as possible, what the Bible says. NOT whether it may or may not be true or real.
     
  10. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,069
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    But then aren't you just answering your own question? You can determine whether or not a plant was intended to be eaten by determining a) whether or not it was in the garden and b) whether or not it could be considered potentially harmful, and that would surely include the plants you listed.
     
  11. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,329
    Ratings:
    +341
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Hey, @Earthling , have you no response for my answer to your challenge?
     
  12. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,429
    Ratings:
    +926
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The only way to evaluate the accuracy of a claim, is to test it against actual reality.
    So how can we test in actual reality if "souls" are real?

    What does "accurate" mean, if not "true" or "real"?
     
  13. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,770
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Once the answer had been given, yes, but originally that wasn't the case.
     
  14. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,770
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    I must have missed it, I'll go and look for it.
     
  15. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,770
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    No, that isn't the case necessarily. According to the Bible God created the garden, a paradise surrounded by a hostile environment. The Earth was meant to be developed, or cultivated by mankind over a great period of time called God's day of rest. This is impossible to establish but one can't assume that God's claim that he gave us all the plants for food is incorrect because the mention of harmful thorns and thistles combined with their expulsion from the garden indicates additional factors were introduced once outside the garden.

    Anyway, all we are trying to establish here is what the Bible says.
     
  16. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,770
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    You can't test something until you know what it is. So the first step is to determine what the soul is. According to the Bible. To determine that may require a comparison of historical context. Which we've done.

    According to theological tradition, Greek philosophy and pagan superstition the soul is some supernatural, usually immortal part of a person that leaves the body and goes somewhere else. Heaven or hell, for example.

    According to the Bible the "soul," which is an inadequate translation but the closest we could come, it was once thought, to an accurate translation is the life and the blood of any breathing creature.

    It's pretty obvious that to test the former is impossible but to test the latter is unnecessary. No one is going to deny life and blood.
     
  17. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,429
    Ratings:
    +926
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Great. So according to your bible, what is a soul?
    The (testable) definition of what a soul is supposed to be, doesn't depend on my personal interpretation of some ancient text I hope?

    But if "soul" just refers to life and blood. Then why the need for the term?
    Just call it life and blood.

    What's the point of using a different word for things for which we already have words?

    I'm willing to bet that when you use the word "soul", you actually mean more then just "life" and "blood". I'm pretty sure there is some implicit religious baggage attaced to it. Isn't there?

    If there isn't, then it's a useless word to refer to things for which we already have words.

    But okay, so life exists and blood exists. So, what now?
     
  18. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,770
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    I think we've covered that. The life, life experiences and all that involves, of any breathing creature.

    It's a word. The word has various meanings. The original word is the best word that translators could compare with the original words. Words change in meaning and can depend upon interpretation. Your interpretation has to come from somewhere. You are probably most familiar with the most common use of the word which, in this case, happens to come from primitive superstitious, religious and philosophical applications. The Bible differs from those but uses an unfortunate translation. So your interpretation should be based upon that data. You decide what the word means to you. But in the case of those other interpretations you should acknowledge those in the formation of your own interpretation.

    So in other words the word soul may mean nothing or nonsense to you, but other applications may not. The point in this exercise isn't to establish what you think the soul is but what you think the Bible says the soul is. That doesn't mean you have to agree with that interpretation it just means you acknowledge that is an accurate estimation of what the Bible says the word means.

    There are various words which have a similar meaning, or incorporate a meaning that is part of a word. Life to us is the state of being alive. Life though, involves much more than just being alive. You can say a person's life is ended but what did that life involve or include. This is a much more specific application. My life isn't the same as your life or the life of anyone else. All of us have blood. It keeps us alive to experience our own specific life. That's what the Hebrew nephesh and Greek psykhe mean.

    That's a difficult question. There certainly can be. There can be religious baggage attached to anything. Truth, love, faith, evil, good, soul, war, murder . . . anything. If religious to you means having to do with God, well . . . I dare say you would be hard pressed to find something that doesn't have that attachment, but that attachment doesn't necessarily have to reflect your interpretation, even if you acknowledge the existence of that interpretation.

    We have words, they have words, there are words. There are multiple possible uses and applications to most words.

    Whatever. What are you expecting? I had this Idea that I could give a better annotated Bible for atheists than the Skeptic's Annotated Bible which is really a mockery based upon ignorance.

    I have started an Academic's Annotated Bible but I came here and started posting and haven't worked on it since. It would be easiest to work on both simultaneously but I don't think that anyone here is interested in doing that, at least not in the way I suggest, and perhaps the point is moot, because if I want an accurate set of annotations that would be Academic then what would the point of a skeptical approach that wasn't accurate? The purpose of the latter would be negated by the former.

    Don't you think?
     
    #238 Earthling, Mar 13, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019
  19. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,329
    Ratings:
    +341
    Religion:
    Atheist
    And you are starting with the assumption that the Bible's claims are correct.

    Once you realise that the Bible could be mistaken, the problem becomes easier to solve.
     
  20. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,770
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    No. That would be one of the possible conclusions.

    I don't need to ascertain whether or not the Bible can be mistaken, I know the Bible is mistaken and where it is mistaken. The point is to determine what it actually says so you can do the same and then what you do from there is your problem, not mine.
     
Loading...