Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why should religion get a free pass?
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 76 of 112 (485875)
10-12-2008 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by johnfolton
10-12-2008 3:03 PM


Re: Generation of Scientists Turning Againist Evolution
You should read the information on the sites you link to before you post, there's some howlers on this one.
Look at the date given for the writing of the Bible.
The Bible is estimated to have been written between 1450 A.D. and 95 A.D.
The moron cannot even get the dates correct.
Then he claims that the wonderful Bible informed us that:
The Earth is round
Then claims that science discovered that the Earth was round in the 15th century, but science has never discovered that the Earth is round because it isn't round.
Scientific proof that the Bible was inspired by God? No. Scientific proof that the author of this webpage you linked to is a moron? Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by johnfolton, posted 10-12-2008 3:03 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by johnfolton, posted 10-12-2008 7:24 PM Brian has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 77 of 112 (485897)
10-12-2008 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Brian
10-12-2008 4:24 PM


Re: Generation of Scientists Turning Againist Evolution
The Bible is estimated to have been written between 1450 A.D. and 95 A.D.
I suspect most of the majority texts were written between 95 AD and 1450 AD if not for Erasdamus taking these 5000 + manuscripts you would not of had the akjv being written in 1611 including the old testament into English. William Tyndale work too found its way into the King James Version that was written in 1611 in English. My akjv bible was written in 1996 but agree that the new testament is special due to those manuscripts written between 1450 AD and 95 AD that Erasamus used in writting the textus receptus in the early 15th century.
===============================================================
Much of Tyndale's work eventually found its way into the King James Version (or "Authorised Version") of the Bible, published in 1611, which, as the work of 54 independent scholars revising the existing English versions, drew significantly on Tyndale's translations.
William Tyndale - Wikipedia
Then he claims that the wonderful Bible informed us that:
The Earth is round
Then claims that science discovered that the Earth was round in the 15th century, but science has never discovered that the Earth is round because it isn't round.
This scientific principle that you could sit a satellight on the circle of the earth without it falling back to the earth comes from the bible.
Columbus believed you could circle around the earth because this scientific fact was expressed in Isaiah.
P.S. Even if the earth would be slightly pear shaped its round cause you can go round it. At least the Magellan GPS manufacturers give credit to Magellan for proving the earth round.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Brian, posted 10-12-2008 4:24 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Brian, posted 10-13-2008 3:10 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 78 of 112 (485901)
10-12-2008 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Buzsaw
10-11-2008 5:31 PM


Re: No Free Pass To Biblical Fundamentalism Necessary
Hi, Buzz.
Buzsaw writes:
Many religions expect and get a free pass from their advocates. However that is not the case with Biblical fundamentalism which corroborates the Biblical record with actual archaeological, prophetical fulfillment, sociological, historical and other observational evidence such as complex design.
The Book of Mormon/Mormonism, the Koran/Islam, Zen Buddism, RC Hierarchal Vaticanism, Shintoism, Hinduism etc are some examples coming to mind which expect and get a free pass from their adherents.
You know my ego wouldn't just let this one slide.
How is biblical fundamentalism any less expectant of a free pass than any of these other religious groups you've named? Here’s how Larni defined “free pass” in the OP:
Larni writes:
When I say 'free pass' I mean letting a statement of faith go unchallenged because it is somehow 'off limits' to such challenges.
Parenthetical statements omitted from the above quote without ellipses
As I understand it, the requirement of accepting the Bible as 100% truth, even when snakes and donkeys start talking and when water turns to blood, is demanding a “free pass.” If you refuse to provide evidence for your claim, you are demanding a “free pass.”
I’m not even going to attempt to explain (nor pretend to understand) how Christ’s Atonement actually accomplishes what it does, and I have never been given a satisfactory answer from anyone, including God. This, to me, constitutes a “free pass”: my leaders and my God have basically told me that they are not going to explain it to me, but that they expect me to believe it and apply it to my life anyway. They often expect me to believe when a prophet makes the claim that he has seen an angel, and members share their testimonies, in which they claim to have witnessed a miracle, when in fact they did not even consider the possibility that the event was easily explanable by non-miracles.
In terms of this sort of doctrinal issue, you’re absolutely right: the Mormon religion asks us to believe something that it will not even attempt to prove. But, if you seriously believe that your religion is different, you are either deluding yourself or indoctrinating your congregation (probably both).
-----
But, for other claims, such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon, my church has never demanded me to accept it without question. In fact, the Mormon Church funded archaeological expeditions in Mesoamerica in the 1970's to entertain questions about the Book of Mormon’s authenticity. They were a flop, and the Church kind of tried to prevent it from becoming a big deal, but some people still can’t let go, and claim to have found all sorts of Book of Mormon artifacts in Mesoamerica.
More recently, a Mormon researcher named Rodney Meldrum released a video presentation about the Hopewell hypothesis for the Book of Mormon's geography. I personally like much of Meldrum’s conclusions, but we don't have definitive proof yet, nor can I defend it without using the Book of Mormon, which I can’t prove is actually an artifact from that civilization (though I, of course, believe it is).
-----
Look, Mormons use the scientific method! We used to think the Book of Mormon took place in Central America (only God knows why we were so stupid, though: Joseph Smith allegedly found the Golden Plates in frickin’ New York!), so we set out to test our hypothesis by looking for artifacts that supported the Book of Mormon version of Mesoamerican history. When that failed, we looked to another hypothesis, and this one looks a lot better than the last one (though it's still admittedly weak).
Granted, it's still based on apologetics, but it's not a "free pass" by any stretch of the imagination. Our Church is even willing to admit when we made mistakes: the Book of Mormon’s wording has been changed in several instances to reflect a better understanding of the material than the original writer or translator. (We won’t be this open-minded in relation to the big, fundamental issues though, I’m afraid).
Of course, I must admit to you that not all Mormons think in this fashion, and probably the majority are just brain-dead, blind-faith automatons. I suspect, based on my dealings with people from several religions, that this is the case for other churches, as well.
But, in this case, the "free pass" is what the individual gives, not what the church demands. I suspect that neither your church nor mine demands on any significant scale that the membership not question what is taught to them. But, you surely have to admit that a lot of people in your congregation give your sermons and the Bible a “free pass” anyway. Why do you think they do that?

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2008 5:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 79 of 112 (485902)
10-12-2008 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by johnfolton
10-12-2008 3:03 PM


Re: Generation of Scientists Turning Againist Evolution
Actually the chart shows an attempt to relate the Bible to science not the other way around typical creationist BS

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by johnfolton, posted 10-12-2008 3:03 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 80 of 112 (485904)
10-12-2008 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by johnfolton
10-12-2008 10:37 AM


Re: Generation of Scientists Turning Againist Evolution
P.S. Scientists are not all athiests and those that are not know full well the only reason the theory of evolution is given a free pass is that your rock has created separation from church and state by those liberal judges that are redefining the constitution not upholding the constitution. McCain Pallin elect so conservative federal judges are appointed that will uphold the constitution instead of redefining the constitution taking away evolutions free pass within our educational system.
Where has the Constitution been redefined?
Edited by bluescat48, : typo

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by johnfolton, posted 10-12-2008 10:37 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by johnfolton, posted 10-12-2008 10:09 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 81 of 112 (485906)
10-12-2008 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by bluescat48
10-12-2008 8:33 PM


Re: Generation of Scientists Turning Againist Evolution
Where has the Constitution been redefined?
The created lemon test in essenses is an abridgment of the freedom of speech rights and prohibiting the free exercise and disrespecting religious beliefs. The founding fathers goal was not to have the government to make laws disrespecting established religion which is what they have done by making laws that respect atheistic evolution. Atheism is considered a religion and by taking God out of evolution the Supreme Court are not upholding the constitution but redefining the constitution by making laws respecting the establishment of the atheists religion.
=============================================================
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
United States Constitution main page annotations
The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/eclause2.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
Page not found - WND
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by bluescat48, posted 10-12-2008 8:33 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by bluescat48, posted 10-13-2008 12:12 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 84 by Admin, posted 10-13-2008 9:02 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 82 of 112 (485911)
10-13-2008 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by johnfolton
10-12-2008 10:09 PM


Re: Generation of Scientists Turning Againist Evolution
Atheism is considered a religion and by taking God out of evolution the Supreme Court are not upholding the constitution but redefining the constitution by making laws respecting the establishment of the atheists religion.
Atheism is NOT a religion. There is no atheistic dogma. Whats more evolution is not an atheistic theory. Your source,http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/eclause2.htm, has nothing to do with atheism.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by johnfolton, posted 10-12-2008 10:09 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 83 of 112 (485915)
10-13-2008 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by johnfolton
10-12-2008 7:24 PM


Re: Generation of Scientists Turning Againist Evolution
I suspect most of the majority texts were written between 95 AD and 1450 AD...
I think it is simply a typo, the author must have meant 1450 BC - 95 AD. You always start with the earliest date (you do this yourself in your reply), thus 1450 AD - 95 AD does not make sense. I would also say that all of the OT books were written a good bit before 95 AD, even the oldest extant, the Dead Sea Scrolls, were almost all written before this time. Plus, we do not have any complete NT texts dated 95 AD.
P.S. Even if the earth would be slightly pear shaped its round cause you can go round it.
You can go round any shape at all, you can go round a square if you wish. But Isaiah was specifically talking of the Earth being a circle, and in keeping with the flat Earth promotion in the Bible, this circle would have been flat, like a CD or DVD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by johnfolton, posted 10-12-2008 7:24 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 84 of 112 (485923)
10-13-2008 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by johnfolton
10-12-2008 10:09 PM


Re: Generation of Scientists Turning Againist Evolution
Hi JohnFolton,
Unless you're going to address the topic, please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by johnfolton, posted 10-12-2008 10:09 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 85 of 112 (648905)
01-19-2012 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Larni
10-12-2008 12:30 PM


Why should religion get a free pass? Bump
I thought I might bump this as hooah212002's Message 44 reminded me of it.
The thread got borked after Message 74.
I wonder what the newer members might think.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Larni, posted 10-12-2008 12:30 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 01-19-2012 11:46 AM Larni has not replied
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-19-2012 12:16 PM Larni has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 112 (648917)
01-19-2012 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Larni
01-19-2012 10:14 AM


Re: Why should religion get a free pass? Bump
I wonder what the newer members might think.
I think the thread ended because it lost all of its entertainment value once the asylum inmates stopped posting.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Larni, posted 01-19-2012 10:14 AM Larni has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 112 (648930)
01-19-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Larni
01-19-2012 10:14 AM


Re: Why should religion get a free pass? Bump
You never replied to my reply to your OP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Larni, posted 01-19-2012 10:14 AM Larni has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 88 of 112 (648936)
01-19-2012 12:27 PM


New member here: yes, religion does get a free pass.
It's a legacy trait - we unthinkingly allow people to talk about souls and heaven and such as though their existence was undisputed and that it's sane to do so.
In Radio 4's case, there is even a 10 minute slot called 'Thought for the Day' which is a religious piece normally populated by a clergy of some kind and normally pure drivel that has me screaming at the radio.
I'm pretty sure John Humphreys is embarrassed by it but there's no hope of dumping it.
Edited by Tangle, : typo

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2012 12:34 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 92 by Larni, posted 01-19-2012 2:32 PM Tangle has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 89 of 112 (648937)
01-19-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Tangle
01-19-2012 12:27 PM


Tangle writes:
in Radio 4's case, there is even a 10 minute slot called 'Thought for the Day' which is a religious piece normally populated by a clergy of some kind and normally pure drivel that has me screaming at the radio.
It's the title that gets me. It implies that there's been some thinking going on, but this is never supported by the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Tangle, posted 01-19-2012 12:27 PM Tangle has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 112 (648939)
01-19-2012 12:50 PM


What would constitute not getting a free pass?
When I say 'free pass' I mean (what I think Dawkins means) letting a statement of faith (such as that Jesus returned from death, humans are reincarnated or there is a non material realm that can be accessed through prayer or meditation for example) go unchallenged because it is somehow 'off limits' to such challenges.
How is the treatment that religion gets any different from the treatment that faux science/history gets? Why didn't people mount campaigns to get 'In Search of' removed from the air, when Leonard Nimoy was talking about Big Foot, ESP, and other crap?
Do we go out of our way to ridicule our co-workers who believe in ghosts or von Daniken conspiracy theories, or do we largely just leave them alone as long as they don't leave their work for us to do?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Larni, posted 01-19-2012 2:34 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 95 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2012 3:36 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024