Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Posted: April 21 2012 at 04:38
One of the funniest videos I've ever seen and a genuine knockout blow for Christians. I think even a biblical scholar like Rob might find this too much to handle.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 21 2012 at 06:21
So there are contradictions in a religious text - so what? If the followers of that religion can reconcile, explain or simply accept those contradictions (and there is plenty of evidence that they are willing to do all of those) then it is evident it is not a concern for them or is something that is going to bring that religion crashing down around them after 4,500 years of living with those religious texts and the interpretations thereof. Refuting the claims of contradiction is in the most part trivial, whether you accept those arguments is something else, but first you have to listen to them and apply the same consideration of argument used in making the original claim. For example using the apparent contradictions of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is a failure to consider the arguments used in refuting the claim and a failure to read the original text in full (in stead of cherry-picking phrases out of context): Gen1 is what happened in the entire Universe and Gen 2 is what happened in the Garden, Gen 1 is what happened in the first seven days and Gen 2 is what happened after - Gen 1 creates the wild animals and in Gen 2 he creates those that man can eat ("god formed every beast of the field" - ie domestic livestock). And it is the same with plants - Gen 1 creates all the wild flora (those that are edible and inedible and/or poisonous and nonpoisonous) and Gen 2 creates those man can eat ("Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat"). Looking at it from a purely scientific standpoint that is exactly what happened when mankind went from being a hunter-gatherer to being a farmer. No contradiction - a practical explanation of what happened from the perspective of a bronze-age civilisation.
If atheist is just a name for people who mock religion without listening then I have no desire to be associated with that form of atheism.
One of the funniest videos I've ever seen and a genuine knockout blow for Christians. I think even a biblical scholar like Rob might find this too much to handle.
Watched the first minute or so (I have to work now), but it's only a "knockout blow" to people who read the Bible like it was a textbook or newspaper written in America yesterday. Pulling phrases out of context and saying they are contradictory is a poor method of interpreting anything, really.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 21 2012 at 08:03
I can't watch it right now but somehow I doubt a Youtube video will be the knockout blow to a 2000-year old religion and its even older predecessor, both of which have lived through wars, communism, philosophy, science, Dawkins, and a lot more...
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 21 2012 at 11:39
Textbook wrote:
Have you watched the video?
Of course I watched the bloody video - d'yer think I'd criticise soemthing I hadn't seen? D'yer think I would blithely nod in agreement without first checking the facts? D'yer think I pulled the Genesis Chapter 1 vs Genesis Chapter 2 example out of my butt? D'yer think that's the only example from all those given that has been refuted? D'yer think those that make "funny" videos care that much about such fripperies such as facts? D'yer think they care whether those contradictions can be explained or not? D'yer think anyone smart enough to spot these contradictions would be smart enough to read them in context and make a proper analysis? D'yer think you could come up with one, just one, of those contradictions that cannot be explained or refuted by proper contextual analysis of the text? D'yer think that sloppy and unsubstantiated "proof" that a spiritual text has errors is really going to change anything?
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Posted: April 22 2012 at 03:30
The segment about what happens when you see the face of god is not something a bible believer can lightly right off. Just because the video is presented in an entertaining format does not mean that there isn't something serious messed up with a text that says "If you see god you will die except you will live forever except no one has ever seen him but over 70 people have seen him but it is impossible to see him."
Also the lightning round segment is very hard to just brush off, as is the final dilemma section where polar opposite answers are both supported by the bible. Everything in the video is referenced to actual bible quotations.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 22 2012 at 04:53
Textbook wrote:
The segment about what happens when you see the face of god is not something a bible believer can lightly right off. Just because the video is presented in an entertaining format does not mean that there isn't something serious messed up with a text that says "If you see god you will die except you will live forever except no one has ever seen him but over 70 people have seen him but it is impossible to see him."
Easily explained as the manifestations of god and the entity of god. John says no man has seen god, only the begotten son, and through him he has been known - a NT claim that no one in the OT who says they saw god actually did - they saw Jesus (and if you are arguing the case against christianity then that opinion has to be taken as the christian view - you cannot respond with "yeah but the OT says...."). While the idea of the trinity is christian if the trinity existed after christ was made human then it would have existed before that event too, and even in judaism while not accepting the trinity there is a distinct duality which again would explain why some can see one aspect of god and live and the other (would) die. The most important prophet of the OT was not allowed to see the face of god, yet lesser characters claimed to have seen his face - which at least allows room for the suggestion that the lesser characters were seeing a manifestation of god rather than the actual entity of god. Also in the OT there are other possible explanations for these duality contradictions - the voice of god is said to be an archangel (Metatron), it is eminently possible that the manifestations of god to men was through a intermediaries. Or it is simply how a pan-dimensional being appears in our 3-dimensional universe (like the mice in H2G2), it is physically not possible to see the true face in our dimension. Few of these explanations and counter-arguments can be met with a "yeah, but..." response, especially if you approach them rationally rather than instinctively.
As I said, you don't have to accept the refuting of these contradictions but if possible explanations exist then they should be considered and the afirmation that these passages show as errors is therefore inconclusive. If we (as non-believers) are willing to provide sound scientific explanations for supernatural events then any plausible explanations for the apparent contradictions in the semantics of a text should be listened too and evaluated as part of any further discourse on those contradictions. The video merely repeats the original claims without answering any of the counter-arguments (which existed before the video was made) - simply showing edits of evangelists stating that there are no contradictions in the bible without allowing us to hear those counter-arguments is disingenuous.
Textbook wrote:
Also the lightning round segment is very hard to just brush off, as is the final dilemma section where polar opposite answers are both supported by the bible. Everything in the video is referenced to actual bible quotations.
Yes it does reference actual bible quotations, but the context of those quotations is ignored. I have no intention of listing each of them in turn and presenting possible plausable explanations for each (that's what Google is for).
I'm not claiming that any of these counter-explanations are true, or valid or even accurate - (since I hold that all scriptures are the invention of man it really doesn't matter to me) - I'm just pointing out that for all of these claims there are counter-arguments that we should listen to before making snap judgements.
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Posted: April 22 2012 at 05:02
Well any contradiction can be explained if you try hard enough.
But as I've said before, wouldn't a perfect being who created a text with the intention of it being a guide for the willing to live in the world as he intended make it clear and lucid? What would be the benefit of making it murky and contradictory? Why give people an interpretive reading challenge, why not just lay it down straight and plain? Very shady to me.
And while we're here, Jimmy Carter is the man:
"The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter.
Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world."
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 22 2012 at 05:37
Textbook wrote:
Well any contradiction can be explained if you try hard enough.
It's not what you said though is it...
Textbook wrote:
One of the funniest videos I've ever seen and a genuine knockout blow for Christians. I think even a biblical scholar like Rob might find this too much to handle.
The problem for me is that you didn't try. You took the video at face-value without even contemplating the possible explanations and counter-arguments and expected everyone to laugh and say "Yeah, that's so right".
Textbook wrote:
But as I've said before, wouldn't a perfect being who created a text with the intention of it being a guide for the willing to live in the world as he intended make it clear and lucid? What would be the benefit of making it murky and contradictory? Why give people an interpretive reading challenge, why not just lay it down straight and plain? Very shady to me.
As I (and many others) have said - the texts were never meant to be read by everyone because when they were written most of the human population was illiterate - they were written by theologians who knew what the texts said and interpreted them for the congregation to hear. They were written in the language of their time and translated many times over the course of history into the language of that time too. All academic texts are impenetrable to those who are not trained/educated in understanding them - every textbook has footnotes to aid understanding and interpretation.
Textbook wrote:
And while we're here, Jimmy Carter is the man:
"The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter.
Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world."
Different argument - I'd take that back one stage futher and say religion is the subjugation of all men, however that's not a justification for atheism or a proof of anything.
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Posted: April 22 2012 at 07:05
Dean: Well I'm preaching to the choir aren't I- this is the atheist/agnostic thread which makes one naturally over-confident about the expected success of an atheistic argument/video. If I were actually for-serious TAKING A THEIST ON I'd write quite differently to the casual way in which I do, but this forum isn't for that.
And quit acting as though I think I'm offering proof of anything. I have never said, and will never say that I have "proof of atheism". Such a thing is impossible as far as I can conceive. When I said "knock-out blow" I meant that in my expectation, no theist would be able to address those biblical inconsistencies in a way that would satisfy me, though of course I could be wrong about that.
The segment about what happens when you see the face of god is not something a bible believer can lightly right off. Just because the video is presented in an entertaining format does not mean that there isn't something serious messed up with a text that says "If you see god you will die except you will live forever except no one has ever seen him but over 70 people have seen him but it is impossible to see him."
To see God's representative is, at least idiomatically, seeing God:
As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. When the angel of the Lord did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the Lord.“We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”
- Judges 13:22
There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight- why the bush does not burn up.” When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.”- Exodus 3:2-4
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. - John 14:8-9
But as I've said before, wouldn't a perfect being who created a text with the intention of it being a guide for the willing to live in the world as he intended make it clear and lucid? What would be the benefit of making it murky and contradictory? Why give people an interpretive reading challenge, why not just lay it down straight and plain? Very shady to me.
As I (and many others) have said - the texts were never meant to be read by everyone because when they were written most of the human population was illiterate - they were written by theologians who knew what the texts said and interpreted them for the congregation to hear. They were written in the language of their time and translated many times over the course of history into the language of that time too. All academic texts are impenetrable to those who are not trained/educated in understanding them - every textbook has footnotes to aid understanding and interpretation.
Much like us, ancient Near Eastern people were very fond of figurative speech. Consider this conceivably modern Facebook posting (that I am making up):
"Hey Darlene. My husband carried me to see Jeff Dunham. I was so excited I hit the ceiling. Jeff's jokes killed me. Anyway, let me run to the store. I'll only be two seconds."
Taking this account literally, a person unaccustomed to the semantics of US English would conclude the following:
1. The husband is very strong. 2. The speaker jumps really high when excited. 3. The speaker is dead because of Jeff Dunham's jokes (so how is she still alive talking to Darlene? ) 4. The speaker can run really fast because: 4a. The speaker can get to the store, shop, and be back in only two seconds.
You and I understand perfectly well the message the speaker is sending. A person 2000 years from now on the other side of the world may be confused by it.
So it is with the ancient texts like the Bible. People in biblical times were fond of figurative language, including hyperbole and idioms. Taking everything literally is hermeneutically unsound.
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12656
Posted: April 22 2012 at 08:06
Epignosis wrote:
Textbook wrote:
The segment about what happens when you see the face of god is not something a bible believer can lightly right off. Just because the video is presented in an entertaining format does not mean that there isn't something serious messed up with a text that says "If you see god you will die except you will live forever except no one has ever seen him but over 70 people have seen him but it is impossible to see him."
To see God's representative is, at least idiomatically, seeing God:
As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. When the angel of the Lord did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the Lord.“We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!” - Judges 13:22
There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight- why the bush does not burn up.” When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.”- Exodus 3:2-4
If I am not mistaken, those instances are mortals seeing "Tetragrammaton", the lesser face of God in the Jewish Kabbala . The "Microprosopus (IHVH), as opposed to the Macroprosopus (AHIH). At least, that's what I gleaned in my discussions with bible scholar friends. Quite interesting after a few beers.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 22 2012 at 09:09
Textbook wrote:
Dean: Well I'm preaching to the choir aren't I- this is the atheist/agnostic thread which makes one naturally over-confident about the expected success of an atheistic argument/video. If I were actually for-serious TAKING A THEIST ON I'd write quite differently to the casual way in which I do, but this forum isn't for that.
You addressed Rob specifically so that's not quite preaching to the choir and you cannot claim dominion on a thread that is read by all and where theists have posted. A "knock-out blow" means an "end of the fight" regardless of what spin you put on it now the blow landed with as much impact as a sockful of custard. This isn't a "let's bash theists" thread either, though once we've all stood up and testified our athiesm/agnosticism/humanism it is somewhat natural the discussions should diverge as a matter of consequence.
But here we are - you are now taking on a theist and an atheist in this thread. Who'd a thunk it eh?
Textbook wrote:
And quit acting as though I think I'm offering proof of anything. I have said, and will never say that I have "proof of atheism". Such a thing is impossible as far as I can conceive. When I said "knock-out blow" I meant that in my expectation, no theist would be able to address those biblical inconsistencies in a way that would satisfy me, though of course I could be wrong about that.
I never said proof of atheism so don't put it in quotes (and as much as I'd like to I can't quit something I'm not doing, haven't done and have no intention of doing, but thanks for the advice, I'll save it for such a time as it may be useful) - I said "justification for atheism" which is not the same thing so I'm not acting as though you are offering proof of anything, because it is pretty evident you are not offering proof of anything, (and only an idiot would try and prove atheism). You are offering these one-liners as evidence against the validity of the texts and by inference the validity of the religion - you are trying to show it is built upon falsehood and other such questionable foundations (such as the subjugation of women) are you not?
And, why the unrelated and unconnected Jiminy Carter quote?
Dean wrote:
Different argument
...Justification for your dislike of religion? An example of religions hypocrisy? It certainly isn't proof of anything, and in the context of the exchange we were having in regard to contradictions in the bible or any other point you've made regarding the literal interpretation of the texts or the inability of bronze-age Hebrews to write in plain English, it doesn't follow on from or reinforce any of the comments you've made thus far.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783
Posted: April 22 2012 at 12:13
Textbook wrote:
But as I've said before, wouldn't a perfect being who created a text with the intention of it being a guide for the willing to live in the world as he intended make it clear and lucid? What would be the benefit of making it murky and contradictory? Why give people an interpretive reading challenge, why not just lay it down straight and plain? Very shady to me.
And while we're here, Jimmy Carter is the man:
I think atheists should be smart enough to not make an argument which rests on assumptions about the motives and methods of a supremely power, eternal, non-human entity which lives outside of space and time. That logic just doesn't really hold water.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
Topic Options
Textbook wrote:
)
