Freethought & Rationalism Archive

demoninho · 07-07-2003, 12:56 AM

Hi, I am afraid my debatting skills must be really poor, can't even convince some fundies on another board the bible says the earth is flat.

I've pointed the the 4 corners quote but they say it's just a colloquial way of saying a very remote place.

Jezus on the mountain w/ Satan is a vision or they were only referrring to the known kingdoms.

And Daniel's dream, well just a dream not a reflection of reality.
:banghead:

Ovazor · 07-07-2003, 02:06 AM

That's the essence of fundy-style biblical critcism: whenever i bible is in error they wave their hands and explain why it actually is not an error. They can be very imaginative in this.

And no, no matter what you do, you will not be able to convince them that the bible contains errors. So, don't judge your debating skills with that.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

07-07-2003, 02:08 AM

It must be so hard to find your fundy friends are not as biblically literal as you think they ought to be. Perhaps you are the fundie yourself? Instead of trying to persuade biblical literalists to take the bible literally, maybe you might consider whether you are the one who has got mixed up and find something less childish to talk about?

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Doctor X · 07-07-2003, 02:11 AM

One should never admonish one who merely wishes to hold others to their stated ideals and to promote reading comprehension.

--J.D.

07-07-2003, 03:01 AM

Actually, Doctor X, trying to hold someone to their stated ideals when you think they are wrong is a bloody stupid thing to do.

l-bow · 07-07-2003, 03:42 AM

There's a thread about this very topic:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=57287

Doctor X · 07-07-2003, 04:20 AM

Bede:

Quote:

. . . trying to hold someone to their stated ideals when you think they are wrong is a bloody stupid thing to do.

On the contrary, only through such challenge can one learn.

--J.D.

07-07-2003, 06:49 AM

No JD. The fundies have stated that they believe the bible should be interpreted figuratively when it is making a claim they know to be wrong. That shows they are using common sense and outside knowledge to interprete the bible rather than simply reading it like automatons. To tell them they should take it all literally even when it is palpably false is, as I said, a bloody stupid thing to do.

B

CJD · 07-07-2003, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by I-bow
There's a thread about this very topic:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=57287

That was hardly the thread to refer someone to, I-bow. I suggest looking through this one for a more thorough discussion of how to read the text. Also, pay heed to those admonishments given to certain atheists to not, as Bede already wrote, try "to tell them they should take it all literally even when it is palpably false." Faulting someone else based on your faulty reading of the text is laughable (not to mention insulting).

Regards,

CJD

l-bow · 07-07-2003, 08:46 AM

Bede, CJD,

Do you really it's all matter of interpretation? That the bible has no voice of its own? So why not let the bible speak for itself. And if its wrong, well, then its wrong. IMO that's why concordism is a mistake.

07-07-2003, 12:56 AM	#1
demoninho Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 927	some flat earth help, please Hi, I am afraid my debatting skills must be really poor, can't even convince some fundies on another board the bible says the earth is flat. I've pointed the the 4 corners quote but they say it's just a colloquial way of saying a very remote place. Jezus on the mountain w/ Satan is a vision or they were only referrring to the known kingdoms. And Daniel's dream, well just a dream not a reflection of reality. :banghead:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2003, 02:06 AM	#2
Ovazor Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 884	That's the essence of fundy-style biblical critcism: whenever i bible is in error they wave their hands and explain why it actually is not an error. They can be very imaginative in this. And no, no matter what you do, you will not be able to convince them that the bible contains errors. So, don't judge your debating skills with that. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

07-07-2003, 02:08 AM	#3
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	It must be so hard to find your fundy friends are not as biblically literal as you think they ought to be. Perhaps you are the fundie yourself? Instead of trying to persuade biblical literalists to take the bible literally, maybe you might consider whether you are the one who has got mixed up and find something less childish to talk about? Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

07-07-2003, 02:11 AM	#4
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	One should never admonish one who merely wishes to hold others to their stated ideals and to promote reading comprehension. --J.D.

07-07-2003, 03:01 AM	#5
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Actually, Doctor X, trying to hold someone to their stated ideals when you think they are wrong is a bloody stupid thing to do.

07-07-2003, 03:42 AM	#6
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	There's a thread about this very topic: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=57287

07-07-2003, 06:49 AM	#8
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	No JD. The fundies have stated that they believe the bible should be interpreted figuratively when it is making a claim they know to be wrong. That shows they are using common sense and outside knowledge to interprete the bible rather than simply reading it like automatons. To tell them they should take it all literally even when it is palpably false is, as I said, a bloody stupid thing to do. B

07-07-2003, 08:46 AM	#10
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	Bede, CJD, Do you really it's all matter of interpretation? That the bible has no voice of its own? So why not let the bible speak for itself. And if its wrong, well, then its wrong. IMO that's why concordism is a mistake.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.