Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Shaker

It just takes faith!

Betty

So if it appeared that the world was billions of years old, yet the Bible said it was 6000 years old, he would accept the word of the Bible and try to understand why God had arranged things this way?

I get it now.
Shaker

Betty wrote:
So if it appeared that the world was billions of years old, yet the Bible said it was 6000 years old, he would accept the word of the Bible and try to understand why God had arranged things this way?

I get it now.


Yep, that's it exactly. See Kurt Wise:

Quote:
... if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
Leonard James

And all because some ancient storyteller was cunning enough to write that what he was writing were the words of the "God" he was proclaiming. He knew that some of his readers would be gullible enough to believe it, and how right he was!

What a pity he wasn't bright enough to envisage the wicked behaviour the book was going to engender as well.  
Shaker

Leonard James wrote:
And all because some ancient storyteller was cunning enough to write that what he was writing were the words of the "God" he was proclaiming. He knew that some of his readers would be gullible enough to believe it, and how right he was!


That's the trouble with credulity. You can't really fault pre-scientific peoples for holding the ideas about the world and the nature of reality they did because they had no concept of any means (i.e. the scientific method)áof checking/testing their hypotheses against reality. If (for example) you have a mythological mindset and you think that the sun goes around the earth drawn by chariots across the sky every single day, until and unless you have some means of ascertaining that the sun actually sits at the centre of the solar system and is a gigantic fusion reactor, held in hydrostatic equilibrium, converting hydrogen into helium via the proton-proton chain (and to a lesser extent the CNO cycle) and releasing enormous amounts of heat and light in the process, that's what you're going to continue to think.

But we do now, so there's really no excuse. We know how to put ideas and suppositions and maybes and perhapses to the test. There's no excuse any more - uncritical acceptance of fanciful, untested just-so stories may have flown at one time but it doesn't fly now. There has never, ever, not once, ever, been any 'supernatural' pseudo-explanation of anything, ever, which has stood up to sceptical, critical, rational scrutiny.

Quote:
What a pity he wasn't bright enough to envisage the wicked behaviour the book was going to engender as well. á


Hm á
Powwow

Betty, please provide me with the Bible verse that states the age of the earth as being 6,000yrs. I've missed it!!
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:


We know how to put ideas and suppositions and maybes and perhapses to the test. There's no excuse any more - uncritical acceptance of fanciful, untested just-so stories may have flown at one time but it doesn't fly now. There has never, ever, not once, ever, been any 'supernatural' pseudo-explanation of anything, ever, which has stood up to sceptical, critical, rational scrutiny.



And I don't think there ever will be.
Shaker

Nor do I.

The supernatural is an inherently impossible concept. I don't mean that I'm what is known in the trade as a philosophical or ontological materialist (sorry Len!) - that is, somebody who flatly denies that the 'supernatural' exists at all. Search me guvnor. I don't know and don't care. It might or it might not. I dunno.

What I do believe to be the case is that it's inherently and by definition impossible to know anything about the supernatural for this reason:

I am a natural, material being. So are you. So is everybody. So is everything. I am composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. The things I hear are varying compressions of air, itself made of the aforementioned. The things I see are seen by dint of photons - particles of light in everyday parlance - reflecting at differing wavelengths off this or that object. This is the natural world of matter and energy. The 'supernatural' is by definition entirely outside of this sphere and can never be anything but. Even if such a thing as the 'supernatural' exists and can poke its unwanted nose into the realm of the natural, at point of delivery the experience of the 'supernatural' must and has to be, for reasons already given, natural. Goodness only knows where such alleged things may come from (for the people who believe in such things, I mean of course), but when the delivery arrives it's in the realm of flesh-and-blood, matter-energy, proton-neutron-electron-photon organisms. Whatever arrives at the point of delivery can be known to that extent. It may well be a very limited extent indeed; you may know absolutely nothing else whatever about it; but you know that it can be apprehended by a material, natural creature and thus that it can be known to that extent.

In other words, the deck is already stacked in favour of all such alleged 'supernatural' experiences being solidly and entirely natural. The 'supernatural,' if such a thing actually exists, can only ever be known/felt/thought/experienced by solidly natural means. Imagine that you're standing on one side of a very high brick wall - so high that you can't possibly see or climb over it. Whatever goes on on the other side, whoever there may be - if anything, if anyone - must by definition remain completely and utterly unknown until and unless something or other is thrown over the wall for you to see. If that happens, you have something in your hand which you can actually see/touch/hear/taste/smell. There's actually something real and tangible in your hand. You can examine it, you can know it at least to that extent, however minimal. However minimal it's something. But until something is lobbed over the wall, you can know absolutely nothing whatsoever about whatever may be on the other side of the wall, including if there is anything even there in the first place. There may be, but there may not be.

There. That's the 'supernatural.' I don't claim it doesn't exist; I say it's an utter irrelevance even if it does, and not worth the head-room of any sensible person.
Leonard James

Blimey, Shakes, you sure have thought about it in much more detail than I have, but yes, I agree with what you say ... and the most important thing for me in what you have said is that it is an irrelevance.

If anything supernatural exists, and it wants us to know of its existence, then we will ALL know about it involuntarily. And I mean KNOW, (not just believe), in the same way that we KNOW the sun is hot ... i.e., by scientific evidence.

But what we must accept, sadly, is that there are many humans who have allowed themselves to be convinced despite the above logical thinking. And many of them are a danger to us, and must be controlled.
Sebastian Toe

pow wow wrote:
Betty, please provide me with the Bible verse that states the age of the earth as being 6,000yrs. I've missed it!!



I had to read Betty's post again to see where you were getting that from.

Betty wrote:
So if it appeared that the world was billions of years old, yet the Bible said it was 6000 years old,



Nope, still can't see where Betty stated that there was a verse in the Bible that says that. So why are you asking?

There however some bible believing Christians who believe that their interpretation of the texts do tell them that the world is approx 6,000 years old or at least Adam was created at that time, the universe was literally created in six 24-hour days, evolution cannot possibly be true and a 4.5 billion year old Earth is an impossibility.
One of them sometimes posts over on the other place and reminds us of that from time to time.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/i...hp?topic=9204.msg466436#msg466436

Is he mistaken?
Shaker

Leonard James wrote:
Blimey, Shakes, you sure have thought about it in much more detail than I have


These things have to be thought about long, hard and carefully in order to defeat/forestall the inevitable objections of those who advance this sort of wibbly-wobbly mental mush as their "truth" á

The case for any gods/the supernatural generally is, as far as I'm concerned, a busted flush in every possible way. The case against those things is, to me, absolutely and utterly unarguable, beyond further argumentation or discussion or debate. Watertight - as tight as a duck's arsehole under water, as my dad would say. If that sounds as though I'm closed-minded, no - I'm always open to any concept which has a clear and consistent definition (i.e. which isn't irredeemably subjective, partial and parochial) and which has some evidence in its support. I'll always listen to that. I'm an evidentialist - that's what I'm all about.

Gods don't fit here.

I wouldn't be a materialist naturalist atheist otherwise.
Powwow

Mr. Toe,
Too funny. You see Betty's post was an example of stunted. Her post went like this,
If this appeared, but this said that, then he would accept that to understand how.

How the heck does she know about what he would do about anything regarding this, that, and how. She loves to invent crap in her head.
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Blimey, Shakes, you sure have thought about it in much more detail than I have


These things have to be thought about long, hard and carefully in order to defeat/forestall the inevitable objections of those who advance this sort of wibbly-wobbly mental mush as their "truth" á

The case for any gods/the supernatural generally is, as far as I'm concerned, a busted flush in every possible way. The case against those things is, to me, absolutely and utterly unarguable, beyond further argumentation or discussion or debate. Watertight - as tight as a duck's arsehole under water, as my dad would say. If that sounds as though I'm closed-minded, no - I'm always open to any concept which has a clear and consistent definition (i.e. which isn't irredeemably subjective, partial and parochial) and which has some evidence in its support. I'll always listen to that. I'm an evidentialist - that's what I'm all about.

Gods don't fit here.

I wouldn't be a materialist naturalist atheist otherwise.


I confess that all these different ".....ist" terms that you learnÚd people go on about mean nothing to me. I just arrive at my conclusions, but have no idea what sort of  "....ist" I am (with the exception of atheist, of course).  

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum