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. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,324
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Atheist
    A conclusion that does not bear up to scrutiny, and should therefore be abandoned.

    So you know where and how the Bible is mistaken, and instead of just coming forward with this information, you decide that you have to make us do it as well?

    Why?
     
  2. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,769
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Honesty . . . I don't think you have a clue.

    You think this is some new revelation? I've posted some of it here myself. Spurious passages, for example, that don't appear in early manuscripts but suddenly appear, clearly indicating they weren't in the originals? These are clearly marked in good reference Bibles. Mark 16:9-20; John 5:4; John 7:53 John 8:1-11; 1 John 5:7 don't ring a bell?
     
  3. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,324
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Care to explain this?

    How about you get to the point?
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  4. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,769
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    If you haven't got it by now you won't get it if I try and explain it to you. Forget about it.
     
  5. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,324
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Atheist
    So you got nothing.

    Gotcha.
     
  6. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,769
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    A slight amendment to your smug retort would be, I got nothing . . . for you. You get that? It isn't an arrogant smart *** reply, it's my personal statement to you made while fully aware that you got nothing . . . for me as well.

    Our argument isn't conducive to anything other than our propagandist agenda furthering nothing more than our apparent ability to promote our world views resulting in nothing more than, a. insulting any merit those views may have had in the first place and b. more importantly, our egos.

    It's a debate for the sake of debate.
     
  7. lukethethird

    lukethethird Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    967
    Ratings:
    +388
    Religion:
    Xian
    :facepalm:
     
  8. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,324
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Atheist
    So let's recap...

    You posed a question: "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."

    I answered by saying that we can conclude that the Bible's claims about what God said about all the plants being for food is incorrect.

    You said that this isn't necessarily the case, and go on to talk about another claim from the Bible, specifically, that it could have been the case that we were meant to develop the world. At this point, it seemed to me that you are just trying to find excuses to hold the position that the Bible's claim about all the plants being for food was correct.

    I point that out, and I point out that the position that the Bible's claims are INcorrect is just as valid.

    You take issue with my statement that you are starting with the assumption that the Bible's claims are correct, despite the fact that your initial question was treating the claims as a given. You also claim that you know the Bible is mistaken, and you also say you know where it is mistaken. Then you say the point is to get me to do the same. This is despite the fact that I have already stated that the Bible is mistaken, and specified that the claim about all the plants being used for food is one such example. So I have pointed out the Bible is mistaken, and pointed out where, yet you think you need to teach me this. Not only are you telling me something I already know, but you are acting like you are the only one with some great, world-changing knowledge, perhaps hoping that we'll be amazed when we finally figure it out.

    Now, when I said that the claim that the Bible's claim was incorrect, you said it was a possible conclusion, not a premise (despite the fact that you seemed to be treating it as a premise). I pointed out that it is a conclusion that does not hold up to scrutiny. After all, there are lots of plants around that are dangerous or even deadly for humans to consume. Since this conclusion does not hold up to scrutiny, it should be abandoned. I also pointed out that you seemed to have started this thread solely for the purpose of walking us through your reasoning, apparently to reach the conclusion that many of us (including me) have already reached, and I asked why you were doing this.

    You responded to my claim that the conclusion that all plants were intended as food doesn't hold up to scrutiny by telling me that I just didn't have a clue. So apparently I didn't reach the same conclusion that you wanted me to, but you didn't try to explain where I was mistaken, you just resorted to immature behaviour. And in response to me asking why you are trying to walk us through your reasoning to reach a conclusion we have already reached, you start talking about passages that weren't in the originals but were added later. Non sequitur.

    In my next post, I asked you to explain your assertion that I just don't have a clue, and I ask you to get to the point of your non sequitur.

    You then resort to immaturity again, as well as passive aggressive behaviour with the old chestnut, "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you."

    At this point, I conclude that you're just blowing smoke, since you can't seem to get to whatever point you were trying to make, and you don't actually have anything of substance.

    And now here we are.

    So, you have said that you know the Bible is mistaken. You asked me for my opinion on a particular claim from the Bible, and when I answered that we can conclude that this particular Bible claim is wrong, you say that I am wrong, and that deciding that the claim is wrong is one of the conclusions we can reach, despite the fact that I had already presented it as a possible conclusion.

    And I'm doubting you had anything of merit to begin with.
     
  9. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,318
    Ratings:
    +2,423
    OK - I'll play for a minute or two...uncharacteristically, I actually got through ten pages of this thread - for some reason I found it compellingly...er...compelling...as I struggled with the question "WTF is this thread supposed to be about anyway?"...FWIW - I agree with you @Earthling that the Bible got it right on the old "soul" question - "soul" (or rather the words/concepts in the original languages - at least Hebrew in any case - that are most often translated "soul" in English translations - simply meant something that breathes. And I can tell you that statistically, 1 out of every 1 'thing that breathes' does indeed stop breathing at some point and therefore ceases to be a "soul" any more - IOW the "soul" dies. But as my ever so patient friend @Polymath257 has ever so patiently pointed out - this is hardly an earth-shattering revelation - every living thing dies - so what? The Bible got the answer to a trivial question right - and correctly noted a fact that must have been general knowledge among humankind a hundred millennia before we even learned how to write stuff down at all. But credit where credit is due - you are correct and the Bible does indeed say that the soul dies whereas some people - incredibly, given that we have passed through revolutions of the agricultural, industrial, enlightenment and scientific varieties since this was first noted - believe that it does not. Well - I suppose there's only one way to find out for sure - but none of them seem to be in too much of a hurry...anyway, I was with you (more or less) up to there but then...
    Where's your scriptural basis for this? No marijuana indeed! Get reeeel maaan!
     
  10. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,769
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    And that, I thought at the time, at least someone would point out, is a direct quote from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. (Link) I have this unfortunate habit of not citing my sources, even those of my own making. I'm going to have to stop that.

    Okay.

    No, it's not an excuse it's a logical conclusion. The Bible says, at Genesis 1:29: "And God went on to say: “Here I have given to you all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree on which there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed. To you let it serve as food."

    When interpreting the Bible you have to take in consideration who it is addressing or applied to and when and where. In Genesis 1:29 it is referring to Adam and Eve, not us. In the garden of Eden, not your back yard. At the beginning of creation, not now. So, to Adam and Eve, in the garden of Eden, before they were expelled from that garden, the fruit of trees and vegetation were food to them.

    What was the earth outside of that specific garden like? The place where they were in exile, so to speak, was different than the garden. It was full of thorns and thistles and, no doubt, other harmless forms of vegetation.

    That's a lot to sift through. Kudos for that. But there's some need for clarification.

    I took issue with the assumption that it was necessary for you to make regarding the accuracy of the Bible. What the Bible says was the desired conclusion. From the perspective of the unbeliever, no matter the assumption of accuracy. So I wanted you to say something like, "Oh, I think the Bible is nonsense, but it does say Adam and Eve were in a garden, secluded from the hostile environment around it, to which they were later expelled from, so it certainly is possible that the Bible is saying there wouldn't be harmful edibles in that specific area."

    That is an accurate interpretation and I can't understand why you can't see that. If it isn't tell me why it isn't.

    In this specific case the Bible isn't mistaken. You think this because you fail to acknowledge what the Bible says about Eden and what their expulsion involved. The environment outside of that place. You see it as applying to you and the environment as you know it now, rather than as they knew it then. It applies to Adam and Eve then and there, not Elijah in Jerusalem much later. Not us here and now.

    In other cases elsewhere the Bible is mistaken. Like Jesus saying "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." That never happened. I know this because I'm familiar with early manuscripts that don't have that event taking place. You can see this through a reading of a good reference Bible or footnotes to those passages in some translations of the Bible itself. It isn't some special knowledge I posses and hold over you like a guru.

    Actually, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible treated it as a premise from a critical or skeptical perspective. It was a question. That's mostly my fault for not citing the reference, as I mention above.

    Yes. Here. Now. Not, apparently, then. There.

    Can you see that now?
     
  11. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,769
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Okay. As you posted this I was making this response (Link) which I think addresses your question about Eden.
     
  12. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,318
    Ratings:
    +2,423
    It wasn't really a question - maybe a rhetorical one. But anyway, since you have moved on to the fruits and veg question, what about Genesis 2:9? Doesn't that verse suggest that there were trees there that were not necessarily "good to eat"? For example it also mentions trees being "pleasant to the sight" (although there's no reason why these couldn't have been the same ones that were good to eat - but there are certainly some rather splendid-looking trees today that have no edible fruits (for humans) - and of course there were the trees of knowledge of good and bad (not meant for them to eat at all) and the tree of life (absolutely off limits). So even then, looking at the Bible, there was vegetation - right in the middle of the garden - that was not good to eat for humans. And of course there were also birds and insects that would (then as now) be quite happy to eat fruits and nuts that were positively harmful to humans.

    But the most compelling evidence of all comes in Chapter 3. The woman, wandering stark naked through the garden (hmmm, OK) meets up with a talking snake (yikes!) who persuades her to eat the forbidden fruit (oh right - a likely tale)...I reckon even if you're right about the thorns and thistles and stuff, and if Eve wasn't just making all that talking snake stuff up to avert God's annoyance with her, I reckon she must have picked the wrong kind of mushrooms for breakfast that morning.
     
  13. Tiberius

    Tiberius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,324
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Yes.

    How can it be a logical conclusion when reality - which has many plants that are poisonous to Humans if we try to eat them - shows that it can't possibly be the case? If you have to ignopre reality to make your point, then your point certainly can't be about reality!

    What was the corridor outside Darth Vader's chamber on his star destroyer like? There's no evidence for Darth Vader's star destroyer, and there's no evidence for the Garden of Eden. It seems to me that you are taking the Bible, assuming it is true, and trying to infer from the Bible things that the Bible doesn't directly address. That's not only starting with the assumption that the Bible is true, but extremely unreliable.

    That's fair enough, but we are still dealing with something that isn't real. It's like if a book said that Darth Vader's chamber was warm, filled with a pure helium atmosphere and lit only in infra-red, while the corridor outside was completely the opposite. We could make some guesses, but we could never get any really accurate information - what's the opposite of helium? And it's still assuming that it's real in the first place.

    In this case, the Bible ISN'T mistaken? Are you saying the Adam and Eve story is literally true? The Garden of Eden was literally a real place? You must do a lot more than simply claim it is real. You must show me evidence. Until then, I stand by my first answer - the Bible's claims are mistaken.

    I think it's a bit of a stretch to conclude that just because a story has been in the manuscript from the beginning, it must have really happened.

    A
    So you are saying that the SAB (and by extension, your own argument) is treating the claim we can eat all plants as a premise. Yet, when I said that you are treating this claim as a premise (in post 239), you replied by saying, "No. That would be one of the possible conclusions."

    So earlier you were saying that this is a conclusion, now you are saying it's a premise, and NOT a conclusion!

    Yes. You are assuming that there were no poisonous plants in an effort to avoid the conclusion that the Bible's claim that all plants are suitable for food is mistaken. But there is no evidence in reality to support the conclusion that there were no poisonous plants only a few thousand years ago.
     
Loading...