Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 04-14-2003, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO
Ed:
The Kings reference says "for there is no one who does not sin".

Romans 3:10 as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

NOGO
How wrong can you be ...

Noah

Genesis 6:9
... Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

Genesis 7:1
Then the LORD said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time.

JOB

Job 2:3 The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause."

Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.

Luke 1:5-6 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

All Christians

1 John 3
6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

These are all believers. Believers are considered righteous by God on account of their faith even though they are still sinners, though their desire to sin is being gradually diminished by God's indwelling Spirit. Read Genesis 15:6.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-15-2003, 01:22 AM

Quote:

jtb: By this argument, no child of Christians will EVER commit a crime, because their "spiritual DNA" has been fixed. This is obviously nonsense.

No, everyone is responsible individually to repent, noone can do it for you not even your parents.

You are now contradicting the very reason you INVENTED "spiritual DNA", which was to MAKE PARENTS RESPONSIBLE for the sins of their offspring.

Quote:

jtb: And God's reason for ejecting Adam and Eve from Eden is plainly stated in Genesis: "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden". You really don't know your Bible very well, do you?

Yes, God did not want us to be like gods and also corrupted by sin. It would have turned earth into a living hell.

"Original sin" was INVENTED many centuries later. It is NOT in Genesis.

Quote:

jtb: You have never demonstrated the existence of the Christian God, or his moral character. Nor have you ever provided a rational basis for the existence of God's emotions, and you admitted that you had none. And there is absolutely no reason why emotion cannot come from non-emotion: this is more "things with a label cannot come from things without that label" garbage. Furthermore, EVERY emotional being we know of was originally non-emotional (before its brain developed).

Fraid so, using the law of causality. The law of sufficient cause applies to the existence emotions. Emotional beings have the built in potential for emotion at conception.

No, Ed, you have not. There is NO LAW which says that emotional beings cannot come from non-emotional ones.

Quote:

jtb: It is absolutely impossible for billions upon billions of very different people to be perfectly represented by TWO people..

The only way you could know this is if you were omniscient.

Bullshit. There is absolutely NO WAY that billions of DIFFERENT people can be properly represented by TWO people.

Quote:

No, God knows that we would have done the very same thing in the same situation.

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that every single one of the billions upon billions of people that have ever lived "would have done the very same thing in the same situation".

Quote:

These are all believers. Believers are considered righteous by God on account of their faith even though they are still sinners, though their desire to sin is being gradually diminished by God's indwelling Spirit. Read Genesis 15:6.

...which, of course, doesn't say that.

winstonjen · 04-15-2003, 01:27 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

...which, of course, doesn't say that. [/QUOTE

Duh! Ed is referring to his "Ed's Annotated Bible"! Can't you guys see that?!?!

[/sarcasm]

Ed · 04-15-2003, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO
Deuteronomy 23:2
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Here again Yahweh blames children for the acts of their parents. Bastards were considered impure and therefore not fit to enter in the congregation of Yahweh.

Biblical genealogies show that David was a ninth-generation descendant of Perez, the bastard son of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38:24-30; Ruth 4:18; 1 Chron. 2:5-14), Obviously David was not denied entry into the assembly despite being a descendent of a bastard.

Here again Yahweh breaks his own rules.

If a judge just stuck robotically to the law then he would be unjust, sometimes mercy is just. In the case of David God felt that mercy was called for.

Ed · 04-15-2003, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Evolution explains why humans tend to value OTHER humans, which is the basis of morality. Not only is there no reason to assume the existence of a non-human valuer, but a non-human valuer would be IRRELEVANT to issues of human morality. Even without a God: if we were being watched by aliens from the planet Tharg who think Nazism is a good thing, would that make Hitler's actions moral? Of course not.

Ed: If we are created in the image of that valuer it would make a difference. Especially if that valuer is also the creator and sustainer of the universe. Then we have objective and intrinsic value, unlike if atheism is true.

jtb: We would have value TO GOD (as his playthings), but so what? That still isn't "objective value" to the Universe as a whole. The rocks don't care.

I am not sure exactly what you mean, but the universe would not exist if not for us. Because it was created for us to live in.

Quote:

Ed: If atheism is true then you are correct, the value of human life is subjective and Hitler's actions are no more immoral than any of your actions because they have the same source, ie feelings.

jtb: It is meaningless to discuss the morality of Hitler's actions without some idea of whose perspective is being used. The rocks STILL don't care.

From the perspective of the moral character of the lawgiver of the univese.

Quote:

jtb: However, evolution allows us to ground certain moral issues in objective, impartial reality. Actions can definitely be declared "bad" for the species if they threaten extinction of it.

No, extinction for one species can mean that the species that replaces it is more fit so for the overall process of evolution extinction is a necessary good.

Quote:

Ed: A 21 year old college computer geek and a Roman historian??? Yeah those are good biblical scholars, riiiight.

jtb: Peter Kirby runs the website www.earlychristianwritings.com and is a Biblical scholar. You still haven't explained your bizarre theory that knowledge of Roman history erases knowledge of the Bible. And knowledge of computers doesn't erase knowledge of the Bible either.

Why is it bizarre if I think a scholar that spends all his time in biblical studies is better than some computer kid who studies it weekends when he is not in school or not moderating his website????

Quote:

jtb: But I doubt if you will find ANY Biblical scholars who will agree with your absurd claim that Deuteronomy 24:16 applies only to the Hebrew society and government. A claim that YOU have publicly abandoned ON THIS THREAD.

Absurd. How about Drs. F. F. Bruce and Walter Kaiser, Jr? And I could name many more and these men are not fundies.

Quote:

jtb: The correlation between atheism and intelligence is well-known. Scientists tend to be atheists, and the more accomplished they are as scientists, the more atheistic they are. Scientific American did a survey on this recently.

Ed: I think you are confusing education with intelligence. The more "educated" (read propagandized into secular humanism) someone is, the more likely they are to reject religion. Someone can be very intelligent and not necessarily well educated. Actually though studies have shown that theists still have a majority in the science field.

jtb: The survey rated scientists by their original contributions to science: the number of published papers, scientific awards, and so forth. They were judged by intelligence and ability, not by the level of education they had received.

The correlation stands.

Given that almost all the journals and academic prize panels are controlled by atheistic scientists then such a correlation is expected.

Ed · 04-15-2003, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach
[B]I have seen the dramatic statistics of Atheists/Agnostics (14% of Americans) being so underrepresented in American prisons as to make up only 0.06%.

Here are some studies that address the issue of Intelligence correlating with unbelief.

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html

Intelligence and religious beliefs - statistics

The following is a review of several studies of IQ and religiosity, parts of this page are paraphrased and summarized by Jim Tims, from Burnham Beckwith's article, "The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith," Free Inquiry, Spring 1986.

STUDIES OF STUDENTS

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward� atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability� There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence�"

5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."

Others :

Pratt (1937) among 3040 students at regional state college, taking denomenational affiliation as sign of religiocity, "found that non-affiliates recorded lower mean scores on the American council Examination than any students affiliated to any denomenational group."

Francis (1979)(using fequency of prayer and chruch attendence) 2272 school children between 9-11,"found no relationship between school assigned IQ's and religious behavior after controling for paternal social class."

Francis'('86 replication) findings replicated in second study among 6955 students.

STUDENT BODY COMPARISONS

1. Rose Goldsen, 1952
Percentage of students who believe in a divine god: Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; North Carolina 68.

2. National Review Study, 1970
Percentage of students who believe in a Spirit or Divine God: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette 77.
[Marquette is a religious school]

3. Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977
Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5 percent in "low" ranked schools to 17 percent in "high" ranked schools.

4. Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978
In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26 percent of their students, compared with 44 percent of all students.

STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS

1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

2. Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

3. Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.

First of all you have to ask what do IQ tests test? Many psychologists dont think that you can measure intelligence with tests. It may just be you are testing their test taking abilities. Or they may just test for certain types of intelligence. The jury is still out on this. Also, many of your surveys are really just about education. The more someone is "educated" with secular humanistic propaganda the more likely they are going to be an atheist or agnostic. Also, unfortunately American christians are biblically illiterate and dont know that the scriptures teach that education is very important. But many American christians do not consider education a priority. Especially higher education. And 150 years ago such studies would have been reversed. There was a higher percentage of atheists among the uneducated and most well educated people were theists. This was before academia became a secular humanist propaganda machine.

Quote:

fiach: STUDIES Of SCIENTISTS

1. William S. Ament, 1927
C. C. Little, president of the University of Michigan, checked persons listed in Who's Who in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians [who are less religious] are� far more numerous in Who's Who than would be expected on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numerous."

Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the U.S. population.

2. Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both Who's Who (1927) and American Men of Science (1927). Only 25 percent of those listed in the latter and 50 percent of those in the former reported their religious denomination, despite the specific request to do so, under the heading of "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90 percent of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25 percent suggests far less religiosity among scientists.

Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as non-Unitarians.

3. Kelley and Fisk, 1951
Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. [How these were measured is unknown.]

4. Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend� All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives� A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

5. Francis Bello, 1954
Interviewed or questionnaired 107 nonindustrial scientists under the age of 40 judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. Of the 87 responses, 45 percent claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22 percent claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."

6. Jack Chambers, 1964
Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "The highly creative men� significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40 percent no preference, 16 percent for the most eminent chemists.

7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965
Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.

See my post to Jack above about scientists..

Quote:

fiach: Conclusion

The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time, subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion.

This is the result even when the researchers are Christian conservatives themselves. One such researcher is George Gallup. He found 20% of scientists likely to believe in God.

Another site and study is as follows.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

93% of Scientists are Atheists or Agnostics.

The final site is this one:

http://members.tripod.com/humphrys2/....religion.html

I have seen some surveys where numbers are not quite so lopsided.

Quote:

fiach: The world is round
� By c.500 BC, the Pythagorean school in ancient Greece had come to believe that the earth was round.
� The astronomer and professor at Bologna Cecco d'Ascoli was burnt alive by the church in 1327 for daring to suggest that men may live on the other side of the world.
� The church has revised its earlier opinions and now believes that the earth is round.

The earth goes round the sun
� Around 1513, Copernicus first wrote down his discovery that the earth goes round the sun. This discovery, one of the greatest in the history of human thought, would be violently opposed by ignorant Christian churches for the next three hundred years.
� The philosopher and dreamer Giordano Bruno (and here and here and here) was burnt at the stake by Rome in 1600 for daring to suggest that the earth goes round the sun. See the weasel words of the Catholic Encyclopedia on this case.
� The persecution of Galileo (also here). This great human thinker was imprisoned, threatened with torture, and forced to recant his beliefs because they disagreed with Christian superstitions. Ever since, Catholic writers have told lies about him, and try to justify what happened.
� The thinker and writer Campanella was tortured for subscribing to the Copernican theory.
� While the Catholic opposition to Copernicus is well known, less well known is the violent Protestant opposition to Copernicus' evidence that the earth goes round the sun.Apparently, though, the Protestant churches now believe that Luther, Calvin and Wesley may have been wrong, and the earth may in fact go round the sun.
� The idea that the earth goes round the sun was explicitly prohibited in the church's Index of banned books in 1616 under Paul V, again in 1664 under Alexander VII and again in 1761 under Benedict XIV. Unbelievably, the Copernican theory remained on the Index until 1835. Apparently, though, the church now believes that the earth may in fact go round the sun.

Actually in the 14th century most educated people both Christian and not already knew the earth was round. And as far as geocentrism this was a result of the leadership of primarily the Roman Catholic church erroneously placing the teachings of Aristotle on the same level as scripture. Aristotle taught geocentrism, NOT the scriptures. If these church leaders had put scripture in its rightful place this problem would have never happened.

Quote:

fiach: This last site is slighly off the topic but shows the persistent Christian religion's opposition to scientific leaning. The same applies to Fundamentalists today in America oppsing Evolution which to scientists has been proven while the complex mechanisms are being worked out.

My hypothesis is that those who cling to the simplistic bible myths may indeed do so because they are not able to understand complex ideas as presented in scientific data.

Fiach

No, modern science actually would probably not exist if not for Christians and the Christian worldview.

lpetrich · 04-16-2003, 12:24 AM

(NOGO: David was the descendant of an illegitimate child...)
Ed:
If a judge just stuck robotically to the law then he would be unjust, sometimes mercy is just. In the case of David God felt that mercy was called for.

However, "moral absolutes" are exactly that "robotic" approach.

I am not sure exactly what you mean, but the universe would not exist if not for us. Because it was created for us to live in.

Male-bovine excrement. There is a heck of a lot of Universe that has just plain gone to waste, as it were.

(Ed's putting down Peter Kirby and his collection of early Christian writings...)
Ed:
Why is it bizarre if I think a scholar that spends all his time in biblical studies is better than some computer kid who studies it weekends when he is not in school or not moderating his website????

The same can be said of a self-styled wildlife biologist who considers himself more expert on evolution and the Earth's history than those who spend all their time studying these occurrences.

(inverse correlation between religiosity and scientific achievement...)
Ed:
Given that almost all the journals and academic prize panels are controlled by atheistic scientists then such a correlation is expected.

That's absurd. Ed shows that he does not know what he is talking about. There is no great conspiracy to exclude religious scientists -- it's simply that many scientists do not find many forms of religion to be very convincing, especially fundamentalist forms.

(Fiach on an inverse correlation between religiosity and IQ scores...)
First of all you have to ask what do IQ tests test? Many psychologists dont think that you can measure intelligence with tests. It may just be you are testing their test taking abilities. Or they may just test for certain types of intelligence. The jury is still out on this.

Maybe in some absolute sense; however, I've found that I score very high on IQ tests.

Also, many of your surveys are really just about education. The more someone is "educated" with secular humanistic propaganda the more likely they are going to be an atheist or agnostic.

Who are these scheming propagandists? And how does one tell that they are spouting villainous propaganda?

Also, unfortunately American christians are biblically illiterate and dont know that the scriptures teach that education is very important.

A point that Ed has tried to make with some very forced interpretations. There is nothing in the Bible on learning in general, like the sort of polymathic expertise of Aristotle or Pliny the Elder and other such Greco-Roman gentlemen.

But many American christians do not consider education a priority. Especially higher education. And 150 years ago such studies would have been reversed. There was a higher percentage of atheists among the uneducated and most well educated people were theists.

Evidence given: {}

Although in fairness to Ed, something like that would often be achieved by excluding those who would not subscribe to the official religious dogmas. Thus, Ed would not have been able to go to a Catholic-affiliated university until recent decades.

This was before academia became a secular humanist propaganda machine.

Evidence for such a conspiracy theory?

Ed:
And as far as geocentrism this was a result of the leadership of primarily the Roman Catholic church erroneously placing the teachings of Aristotle on the same level as scripture. Aristotle taught geocentrism, NOT the scriptures. If these church leaders had put scripture in its rightful place this problem would have never happened.

Demonstrably false. And not just Catholic leaders, but also Protestant ones, believed that Copernicanism was contrary to the Bible. Martin Luther pointed out Joshua's Sun miracle and John Calvin some of the Psalms.

No, modern science actually would probably not exist if not for Christians and the Christian worldview.

Which never gave rise to modern science in the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Europe.

Also, Xianity is far from a unified, homogeneous front that has been absolutely constant over the last 2000 years. What Ed considers "true Xianity" would have been considered gross heresy in most previous centuries of Xianity -- he could even have gotten burned at the stake.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-16-2003, 02:06 AM

Quote:

jtb: It is meaningless to discuss the morality of Hitler's actions without some idea of whose perspective is being used. The rocks STILL don't care.

From the perspective of the moral character of the lawgiver of the univese.

What is the entirely rational and non-emotional reason why I, or anyone else, should CARE about what God's opinion is, even if God DOES exist and IS "the lawgiver of the Universe"?

Quote:

jtb: However, evolution allows us to ground certain moral issues in objective, impartial reality. Actions can definitely be declared "bad" for the species if they threaten extinction of it.

No, extinction for one species can mean that the species that replaces it is more fit so for the overall process of evolution extinction is a necessary good.

What part of the phrase "bad for the species" do you not understand, Ed? It's only four words...

Quote:

Ed: A 21 year old college computer geek and a Roman historian??? Yeah those are good biblical scholars, riiiight.

jtb: Peter Kirby runs the website www.earlychristianwritings.com and is a Biblical scholar. You still haven't explained your bizarre theory that knowledge of Roman history erases knowledge of the Bible. And knowledge of computers doesn't erase knowledge of the Bible either.

Why is it bizarre if I think a scholar that spends all his time in biblical studies is better than some computer kid who studies it weekends when he is not in school or not moderating his website????

How do you figure that a man born in 1969 is 21 years old, Ed? This is the year 2003. You're stuck in 1990?

Richard Carrier is not "some computer kid who studies it weekends when he is not in school or not moderating his website". These are his degrees:

B.A. History (minor in Classical Civilization), UC Berkeley (1997)
M.A. Ancient History, Columbia University (1998)
M.Phil. Ancient History, Columbia University (2000)

But I find it amusing that you dismiss Carrier and Kirby's knowledge of the Bible because they know about non-Biblical history too (according to the "Eddian Law of Exclusion" which states that non-Biblical knowledge displaces or erases Biblical knowledge), when you earlier cited Hugh Ross's interpretation of Genesis despite introducing him as an "astronomer". So he can't be a Biblical scholar, right?

Quote:

jtb: But I doubt if you will find ANY Biblical scholars who will agree with your absurd claim that Deuteronomy 24:16 applies only to the Hebrew society and government. A claim that YOU have publicly abandoned ON THIS THREAD.

Absurd. How about Drs. F. F. Bruce and Walter Kaiser, Jr? And I could name many more and these men are not fundies.

I say you're lying about those. Furthermore, why do you cite them if you don't believe they are correct? Remember, YOU publicly abandoned your claim. You're now trying to cite scholars who (according to you) support a claim that YOU do not support.

Or do you now wish to contradict yourself AGAIN and go back to the claim that you renounced earlier? The claim that it's perfectly OK to punish kids for the crimes of their parents because the Biblical condemnation of this applies ONLY to the Hebrew government?

Quote:

jtb: The survey rated scientists by their original contributions to science: the number of published papers, scientific awards, and so forth. They were judged by intelligence and ability, not by the level of education they had received.

The correlation stands.

Given that almost all the journals and academic prize panels are controlled by atheistic scientists then such a correlation is expected.

You obviously don't have the faintest idea of what science is all about, or how scientific journals operate. Scientific papers don't include a religious preface in which the scientist states his religious beliefs!

There are relatively few religious scientists, and they tend to be not so smart. Religion is a sham that smart people tend to see through.

Quote:

Actually in the 14th century most educated people both Christian and not already knew the earth was round. And as far as geocentrism this was a result of the leadership of primarily the Roman Catholic church erroneously placing the teachings of Aristotle on the same level as scripture. Aristotle taught geocentrism, NOT the scriptures. If these church leaders had put scripture in its rightful place this problem would have never happened.

You are, of course, lying AGAIN. You know perfectly well that the Bible does NOT teach round-Earthism or heliocentrism: it was written by flat-Earth geocentrists, and that's the model mentioned in EVERY relevant Bible verse.

Again, why do you lie in such a blatant fashion? What is the point?

winstonjen · 04-16-2003, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
What is the entirely rational and non-emotional reason why I, or anyone else, should CARE about what God's opinion is, even if God DOES exist and IS "the lawgiver of the Universe"?

Ed will probably make a reference to afterlife blackmail and Pascal's wager here, and how the creator can destroy what he creates.

Quote:

What part of the phrase "bad for the species" do you not understand, Ed? It's only four words...

It's four words too many.

Quote:

Again, why do you lie in such a blatant fashion? What is the point?

Ed is using the fallacy of argumentum ad repeatum. He thinks that if he says something often enough, it will automatically become true.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-16-2003, 06:29 AM

Quote:

What is the entirely rational and non-emotional reason why I, or anyone else, should CARE about what God's opinion is, even if God DOES exist and IS "the lawgiver of the Universe"?

Ed will probably make a reference to afterlife blackmail and Pascal's wager here, and how the creator can destroy what he creates.

He may try, yes, but I have no intention of letting him get away with it.

I have pointed out that evolution provides an entirely rational basis for the existence of certain emotional responses in humans, and that our morality is based on those emotional responses. But Ed says he won't accept emotional responses as valid because they're "not rational".

But self-preservation and a desire to avoid pain and suffering are emotional responses. I'd like to see how he pulls off Pascal's Wager on behalf of a hypothetical ultra-rational robot without any emotional desire to avoid pain and suffering in Hell!

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

04-15-2003, 01:27 AM	#803
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless ...which, of course, doesn't say that. [/QUOTE Duh! Ed is referring to his "Ed's Annotated Bible"! Can't you guys see that?!?! [/sarcasm]

04-16-2003, 12:24 AM	#807
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	(NOGO: David was the descendant of an illegitimate child...) Ed: If a judge just stuck robotically to the law then he would be unjust, sometimes mercy is just. In the case of David God felt that mercy was called for. However, "moral absolutes" are exactly that "robotic" approach. I am not sure exactly what you mean, but the universe would not exist if not for us. Because it was created for us to live in. Male-bovine excrement. There is a heck of a lot of Universe that has just plain gone to waste, as it were. (Ed's putting down Peter Kirby and his collection of early Christian writings...) Ed: Why is it bizarre if I think a scholar that spends all his time in biblical studies is better than some computer kid who studies it weekends when he is not in school or not moderating his website???? The same can be said of a self-styled wildlife biologist who considers himself more expert on evolution and the Earth's history than those who spend all their time studying these occurrences. (inverse correlation between religiosity and scientific achievement...) Ed: Given that almost all the journals and academic prize panels are controlled by atheistic scientists then such a correlation is expected. That's absurd. Ed shows that he does not know what he is talking about. There is no great conspiracy to exclude religious scientists -- it's simply that many scientists do not find many forms of religion to be very convincing, especially fundamentalist forms. (Fiach on an inverse correlation between religiosity and IQ scores...) First of all you have to ask what do IQ tests test? Many psychologists dont think that you can measure intelligence with tests. It may just be you are testing their test taking abilities. Or they may just test for certain types of intelligence. The jury is still out on this. Maybe in some absolute sense; however, I've found that I score very high on IQ tests. Also, many of your surveys are really just about education. The more someone is "educated" with secular humanistic propaganda the more likely they are going to be an atheist or agnostic. Who are these scheming propagandists? And how does one tell that they are spouting villainous propaganda? Also, unfortunately American christians are biblically illiterate and dont know that the scriptures teach that education is very important. A point that Ed has tried to make with some very forced interpretations. There is nothing in the Bible on learning in general, like the sort of polymathic expertise of Aristotle or Pliny the Elder and other such Greco-Roman gentlemen. But many American christians do not consider education a priority. Especially higher education. And 150 years ago such studies would have been reversed. There was a higher percentage of atheists among the uneducated and most well educated people were theists. Evidence given: {} Although in fairness to Ed, something like that would often be achieved by excluding those who would not subscribe to the official religious dogmas. Thus, Ed would not have been able to go to a Catholic-affiliated university until recent decades. This was before academia became a secular humanist propaganda machine. Evidence for such a conspiracy theory? Ed: And as far as geocentrism this was a result of the leadership of primarily the Roman Catholic church erroneously placing the teachings of Aristotle on the same level as scripture. Aristotle taught geocentrism, NOT the scriptures. If these church leaders had put scripture in its rightful place this problem would have never happened. Demonstrably false. And not just Catholic leaders, but also Protestant ones, believed that Copernicanism was contrary to the Bible. Martin Luther pointed out Joshua's Sun miracle and John Calvin some of the Psalms. No, modern science actually would probably not exist if not for Christians and the Christian worldview. Which never gave rise to modern science in the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Europe. Also, Xianity is far from a unified, homogeneous front that has been absolutely constant over the last 2000 years. What Ed considers "true Xianity" would have been considered gross heresy in most previous centuries of Xianity -- he could even have gotten burned at the stake.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.