Creation Museum

[Balloon guy 158]

And by that you mean, "You can't prove that a man didn't turn water into wine, because you weren't there. You can't prove a man didn't survive for multiple days in the belly of a whale, because you weren't there. You can't prove that a man didn't die and then come back to life days (or whatever) later, because you weren't there. You can't prove that two of each of the animal species didn't repopulated the earth, because you weren't there. You can't prove that a snake didn't talk, because you weren't there. You can't prove that...etc."I'm not sure that counts as standing up to all academic questions.

If that was what academic questions means than I would agree with you.

[Balloon guy 158]

But the best source of understanding what a crazy ass book it is, is the actual book itself.

And reading it will help you understand it. While reading poorly thought out criticisms that just rehash centuries old 'problems' that have been answered numerous times will not.

[timwakefield 68]

This only remotely makes sense if you first assume the book in question is false.

My assumption is that there are no books which are above or outside the realm of human discourse and debate.

The Bible stands up to all academic questions.

That's ludicrous.

Any chance you can link us to anyone in the last 100 years who was punished for questioning its veracity?

Hell is punishment - in fact it is supposedly the worst punishment in the universe. Inherent to your religion is the idea that anybody who doesn't believe like you do will be punished with eternal torment, which is a pretty intense punishment and a pretty good scare tactic.Fairly related, I've always loved this (well, "always" since it was recorded a couple years ago): Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant discuss the Ten Commandments. So much genocide.

[Dread Aidan 8]

Hell is punishment - in fact it is supposedly the worst punishment in the universe. Inherent to your religion is the idea that anybody who doesn't believe like you do will be punished with eternal torment, which is a pretty intense punishment and a pretty good scare tactic.

Hold on, I think you're leaving some important stuff out.Your claim is:1. People who question the Bible will go to Hell.2. Going to Hell for questioning the Bible proves that the Bible is false.Do I have that right?I don't think #1 is right. I think there are a lot of examples in the Bible of people having doubts and questioning, but ultimately accepting because of things and stuff. I think we need to change the word "questioning" to something else. Not believing maybe? Would you still have an issue with #2 if we made that change?2. Going to Hell for not believing the Bible proves that the Bible is false.That's kind of like saying you shouldn't be marked down on a test just because you came to the wrong answer. Isn't it?I don't know; your reasoning just seems weird to me.

[vbnautilus 48]

Hold on, I think you're leaving some important stuff out.Your claim is:1. People who question the Bible will go to Hell.2. Going to Hell for questioning the Bible proves that the Bible is false.Do I have that right?I don't think #1 is right. I think there are a lot of examples in the Bible of people having doubts and questioning, but ultimately accepting because of things and stuff. I think we need to change the word "questioning" to something else. Not believing maybe? Would you still have an issue with #2 if we made that change?2. Going to Hell for not believing the Bible proves that the Bible is false.That's kind of like saying you shouldn't be marked down on a test just because you came to the wrong answer. Isn't it?I don't know; your reasoning just seems weird to me.

I think he is saying that a system which includes punishment for not believing does not invite objective analysis.Christianity has no whistleblower protection act.

[Dread Aidan 8]

I think he is saying that a system which includes punishment for not believing does not invite objective analysis.Christianity has no whistleblower protection act.

So if the Bible said, "those who believe will have everlasting life in heaven, but those who don't believe will just die and that's it," would that invite objective analysis? Or would just dying be considered a form of punishment? But then I'm not sure what sort of objective analysis is being encouraged when the system is akin to t-ball. We just bat through the order and there are no outs and everybody is a winner!

[timwakefield 68]

I think he is saying that a system which includes punishment for not believing does not invite objective analysis.

Right. And of course there are also innumerable examples of people suffering worldly punishments for being nonbelievers or questioning a certain set of beliefs as well, in Christianity and (obviously) in Islam and other religions as well.

So if the Bible said, "those who believe will have everlasting life in heaven, but those who don't believe will just die and that's it," would that invite objective analysis? Or would just dying be considered a form of punishment? But then I'm not sure what sort of objective analysis is being encouraged when the system is akin to t-ball. We just bat through the order and there are no outs and everybody is a winner!

The problem is with exclusivity. You're either with us or you're wrong is not a philosophy which invites debate or discussion or rational analysis. Rather it rejects them entirely. It says: all the answers are right here in this book, and this book is untrumpable (I'm not sure if that's a real word). If a certain philosophy is in fact Perfect and True, shouldn't it gladly accept critical debate rather than, say, torturing you to death for questioning it? And okay fine, it's not the middle ages anymore and The Church no longer kills you for questioning them, but eternal life after death through Jesus is so central to Christianity that I don't know how to think about the religion without it.

[Balloon guy 158]

Right. And of course there are also innumerable examples of people suffering worldly punishments for being nonbelievers or questioning a certain set of beliefs as well, in Christianity and (obviously) in Islam and other religions as well. The problem is with exclusivity. You're either with us or you're wrong is not a philosophy which invites debate or discussion or rational analysis. Rather it rejects them entirely. It says: all the answers are right here in this book, and this book is untrumpable (I'm not sure if that's a real word). If a certain philosophy is in fact Perfect and True, shouldn't it gladly accept critical debate rather than, say, torturing you to death for questioning it? And okay fine, it's not the middle ages anymore and The Church no longer kills you for questioning them, but eternal life after death through Jesus is so central to Christianity that I don't know how to think about the religion without it.

Are you against the possibility that the God who created everything sets the rules?Cause its kind of dumb to get mad at that. You might as well be mad at gravity. Because everyone who rejects the notion that gravity will cause you to be propelled to earth, then they jump off a building, they all go SPLAT. How mean gravity is for not letting us have a chance to show our incredible reasoning skills with it to tell it how it could be better if it let us fly when we want to, while simultaneously keeping us firm on the ground the rest of the time.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think he is saying that a system which includes punishment for not believing does not invite objective analysis.Christianity has no whistleblower protection act.

Christianity is the whistleblower.Everyone who sins gets separated from God.But luckily there is an out, God sent His Son to make a way for you to avoid that AND get to live forever in paradise.The only requirement is to ask.The conditions are in effect regardless of anyone's knowledge or opinion of them.Christianity is the whistleblower.Now explain again how there is some punishment?

[timwakefield 68]

Are you against the possibility that the God who created everything sets the rules?

I don't know what you mean by, "Am I against it?" The fact is simply that the rules, i.e. the laws of nature that humanity has so far uncovered, show no evidence or need for a creator, and certainly show no evidence of the Biblical God. Quite the opposite in fact - many modern and semi-modern scientific findings have been directly at odds with certain parts of the Bible. It is anything but Perfect.

You might as well be mad at gravity.

You mean like the way you're mad at evolution?

[vbnautilus 48]

So if the Bible said, "those who believe will have everlasting life in heaven, but those who don't believe will just die and that's it," would that invite objective analysis? Or would just dying be considered a form of punishment? But then I'm not sure what sort of objective analysis is being encouraged when the system is akin to t-ball. We just bat through the order and there are no outs and everybody is a winner!

The carrot and the stick are both enemies of objectivity. If I pay you a million dollars to believe I am the best scientist in the world, or I threaten to kill you if you don't believe this, does that help or hurt my credibility? Or yours?

[vbnautilus 48]

Everyone who sins gets separated from God.

And everyone who accepts christian dogma gets separated from Nature.

But luckily there is an out, God sent His Son to make a way for you to avoid that AND get to live forever in paradise.The only requirement is to ask.

But luckily, there is an out. You can live in paradise forever, the only requirement is to relentlessly question everything you think you know.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't know what you mean by, "Am I against it?" The fact is simply that the rules, i.e. the laws of nature that humanity has so far uncovered, show no evidence or need for a creator, and certainly show no evidence of the Biblical God. Quite the opposite in fact - many modern and semi-modern scientific findings have been directly at odds with certain parts of the Bible. It is anything but Perfect.

This is pure hyperbole until you present one example of what you are saying.

You mean like the way you're mad at evolution?

Why would I be mad at evolution? Other than its contribution to murders and racism throughout its short history?I mean I guess its not totally evolution's fault that a few hundred millions people were murdered, I mean atheism has to share some of the blame I guess.

[Balloon guy 158]

The carrot and the stick are both enemies of objectivity. If I pay you a million dollars to believe I am the best scientist in the world, or I threaten to kill you if you don't believe this, does that help or hurt my credibility? Or yours?

Once you pay me the million, I will be better able to answer this question.

And everyone who accepts christian dogma gets separated from Nature.

? Actually you come to see nature with new eyes.Mainly because you realize that 'nature' as you are calling it is separate from you in purpose and importance.

But luckily, there is an out. You can live in paradise forever, the only requirement is to relentlessly question everything you think you know.

I question this.

[vbnautilus 48]

Actually you come to see nature with new eyes.Mainly because you realize that 'nature' as you are calling it is separate from you in purpose and importance.

Anything that separates you from what is around you is unwholesome.

I question this.

You're on the right track my son!

[speedz99 145]

While reading poorly thought out criticisms that just rehash centuries old 'problems' that have been answered numerous times will not.

What are the answers? That these are just coincidences? Because I don't see how else it could be explained.

Christianity is the whistleblower.

Heh.

[brvheart 1,752]

Wow this thread is still going strong. Maybe I need to review the last couple pages. I usually like religion threads where JJJ and Speedz are both posting.ps. I believe that VB is the best scientist in the world.

[Dread Aidan 8]

The problem is with exclusivity. You're either with us or you're wrong is not a philosophy which invites debate or discussion or rational analysis. Rather it rejects them entirely. It says: all the answers are right here in this book, and this book is untrumpable (I'm not sure if that's a real word). If a certain philosophy is in fact Perfect and True, shouldn't it gladly accept critical debate rather than, say, torturing you to death for questioning it? And okay fine, it's not the middle ages anymore and The Church no longer kills you for questioning them, but eternal life after death through Jesus is so central to Christianity that I don't know how to think about the religion without it.

You're either with us or you're wrong is what debate is. Right? I mean, basically? I think I'm right and I'm going to try to prove it. And you're bringing up this whole torture for questioning line again. I'm not aware that the Bible tells Christians to do that. I think maybe some churches kind of lost their way with that. I'm fine saying that yes people have been tortured or killed for questioning the Bible; I don't really know much about the subject, but I don't think I need to discredit that in order for my position to still stand. I just don't know where in the Bible it says you are not to question it.

The carrot and the stick are both enemies of objectivity. If I pay you a million dollars to believe I am the best scientist in the world, or I threaten to kill you if you don't believe this, does that help or hurt my credibility? Or yours?

This is kind of a catch-22, isn't it? If I know that you don't have a million dollars to give me and I know that you wouldn't really kill me, the carrot and the stick have no sway. If I do believe you, then it would certainly cause people to doubt my credibility. But...what if I don't believe you and I still come to the conclusion that you're the best scientist in the world, who will believe me?I have no idea what my point is here.I mean, it just seems to me like you guys are trying to discredit an entire system that can only have a carrot and/or a stick. It seems like you guys are saying, "Religion cannot be a true thing because there is a reward and a punishment." That's hard for me to wrap my mind around.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

i'm starting to get very worried about you. very worried indeed.

[Roll the Bones 74]

And reading it will help you understand it. While reading poorly thought out criticisms that just rehash centuries old 'problems' that have been answered numerous times will not.

Which is a good point. If it is the one true word of God, why did it need to be changed and altered so many times? Was it that people dissagreed with it's contents? Oh wait, isn't that what you just accused me of doing? You know, having a different opinion of what it says compared to you. You look at it and takes it's contents as coming from God inspired writing so naturally your opinion will be different especially if you don't question it. Me, on the other hand, read it as if it's coming from men during the iron age. This leads you to believe that it would make for a great drinking game currently. You know, whenever you inadvertantly yell out, "Damn, that shit's whack!" while you are reading it you have to drink.

[Roll the Bones 74]

You're either with us or you're wrong is what debate is. Right? I mean, basically? I think I'm right and I'm going to try to prove it. And you're bringing up this whole torture for questioning line again. I'm not aware that the Bible tells Christians to do that. I think maybe some churches kind of lost their way with that. I'm fine saying that yes people have been tortured or killed for questioning the Bible; I don't really know much about the subject, but I don't think I need to discredit that in order for my position to still stand. I just don't know where in the Bible it says you are not to question it.This is kind of a catch-22, isn't it? If I know that you don't have a million dollars to give me and I know that you wouldn't really kill me, the carrot and the stick have no sway. If I do believe you, then it would certainly cause people to doubt my credibility. But...what if I don't believe you and I still come to the conclusion that you're the best scientist in the world, who will believe me?I have no idea what my point is here.I mean, it just seems to me like you guys are trying to discredit an entire system that can only have a carrot and/or a stick. It seems like you guys are saying, "Religion cannot be a true thing because there is a reward and a punishment." That's hard for me to wrap my mind around.

It all just adds to the illogical and inconsistency of the concept. Things like souls floating in and out of bodies, places like heaven and hell, all violate every known law of physics and there is no evidence of any of these ideas. . There is no evidence of an intervening creator. We can understand the basics of the workings of the universe and nothing we have come across leads for any logical reason to believe in such things. It's pretty obvious that humans from every culture invented these concepts as a way of explaining the unknown. Every time science or education comes along and disproves religous concepts , it simply retreats further from prior boasts of dogma

[Dread Aidan 8]

I'm going to cross out the stuff that is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

It all just adds to the illogical and inconsistency of the concept. Things like souls floating in and out of bodies, places like heaven and hell, all violate every known law of physics and there is no evidence of any of these ideas. . There is no evidence of an intervening creator. We can understand the basics of the workings of the universe and nothing we have come across leads for any logical reason to believe in such things. It's pretty obvious that humans from every culture invented these concepts as a way of explaining the unknown. Every time science or education comes along and disproves religous concepts , it simply retreats further from prior boasts of dogma

Wakefield said (paraphrasing), "The fact that people are punished for questioning the Bible proves the Bible cannot be true."That's a whole lot different than saying there are all these things that point to the Bible not being true. Is the idea of punishment for non-belief illogical and inconsistent?Edit for actual quote:

The fact that people are punished for questioning its veracity should, itself, make it obvious that the book can't withstand academic scrutiny.

This is what I'm discussing.

[solderz 0]

It all just adds to the illogical and inconsistency of the concept. Things like souls floating in and out of bodies, places like heaven and hell, all violate every known law of physics and there is no evidence of any of these ideas. . There is no evidence of an intervening creator. We can understand the basics of the workings of the universe and nothing we have come across leads for any logical reason to believe in such things. It's pretty obvious that humans from every culture invented these concepts as a way of explaining the unknown. Every time science or education comes along and disproves religous concepts , it simply retreats further from prior boasts of dogma

And considering that Christianity is all about a bigger stick and a bigger carrot. Before this religion, Judaism, its precursor, did not believe in divine forgiveness or hell. It's amazing how successful a larger reward and bigger punishment can be. And that is the only reason these concepts were introduced. To gain larger control over the masses. And of course, it worked. At least the people back then can use lack of knowledge as an excuse. Today there really is no excuse.

[vbnautilus 48]

Wakefield said (paraphrasing), "The fact that people are punished for questioning the Bible proves the Bible cannot be true."

I think that's not a good paraphrase. I don't think TW said anything so strong. What he actually said was:

The fact that people are punished for questioning its veracity should, itself, make it obvious that the book can't withstand academic scrutiny.

Since questioning things is the basis of academic scrutiny, and religion does not want to be questioned, it is not likely to hold up to such scrutiny. One would think if religion were confident that it would hold up to evidence-based scrutiny that it would invite such scrutiny rather than discourage it. But it can't really do that since the whole of it is built on "faith": believing despite what the evidence says. Religion does not even claim to be a scientific theory which should hold up to all evidence, which is why BG's claim that it has held up to all academic scrutiny was so preposterous.

[Dread Aidan 8]

I think that's not a good paraphrase. I don't think TW said anything so strong. What he actually said was:Since questioning things is the basis of academic scrutiny, and religion does not want to be questioned, it is not likely to hold up to such scrutiny. One would think if religion were confident that it would hold up to evidence-based scrutiny that it would invite such scrutiny rather than discourage it. But it can't really do that since the whole of it is built on "faith": believing despite what the evidence says. Religion does not even claim to be a scientific theory which should hold up to all evidence, which is why BG's claim that it has held up to all academic scrutiny was so preposterous.

"Cannot be true" and "can't withstand academic scrutiny" are at least kissing cousins.Faith is not believing despite what the evidence says, faith is believing in spite (wait, what the difference between despite and in spite?) of any evidence. I think there's a real difference there. I don't think the Bible says, "Listen, you might find some stuff that doesn't jibe with what I'm saying, but you've gotta just trust me on this one." So I'm still not buying this idea that it discourages scrutiny.There are plenty of things you can point to and say, "Hey, that goes against what the Bible says!" and academic scrutiny can certainly prove the Bible to be something less than what people might believe. But this notion that the presence of a hell automatically disqualifies it seems pretty lazy to me.