Bible Buffet (Run-off From Noah's Flood)

That's the claim, but everyone has to determine for themselves how truthful it is. I see ~evidence~ that evolution is absolute in the scientific/atheist community.

It goes both ways in both subjects. Scripture is considered pretty strong evidence by many, especially when some of it is backed up by archaeology. When atheists in science speculate about what happened billions of years ago, it is dogma far more than it is evidence. Do you have figures on how many of those DO NOT BELIEVE in salvation through Christ's works? Or did you disregard what I said about basics vs details? To the same extent that science should be able to tell if Dawkins, or Miller, is right or wrong?

You picked the wrong example.I'm an archaeologist. My own work disproves the belief in a global flood at about 4,350 years ago.Don't go claiming evidence that you don't have.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I'll not argue with your assertion about human behavior pertaining to adherence to biblical laws being a "minor detail." However, the "details" in natural history are, at least to the worldview of a fundamental Christian, anything but minor.Take, for instance, the Garden myth: allegedly, a few thousand years ago, the sun, moon, stars, heavens, earth, plants, animals and humans were created. Animals lived side by side, eating nothing but plants (tigers eating bamboo!), and there was no death until *oops!* Eve and Adam boofed the pooch. Thus, The Fall^®.Never mind that there is ample (some would say overwhelming) evidence that the Garden myth is just that: a myth. The fossil record indicates copious death millions upon millions of years before humans ever hit the stage, so to speak. To a literalist, this is anathema since death before The Fall^® renders Christ's death and resurrection pointless, no? And this isn't even getting into the fundy's suggestion that if even one part of the bible is suspect, then that renders the whole thing suspect. Thus the recalcitrant, irrational, unreasonable literalist arguments against anything which smacks of *gasp!* evidence, even if such evidence is undeniable and plain. And this is just one example. So your statement that natural history is nothing but "minor details" to a Christian seems, to me, to go over like a lead balloon. However, the fact that a biblical literalist would indeed consign all geological, cosmological, archeological, genetic, etc evidence to the trash heap of "minor details" would certainly not come as a surprise to many.Have a good one.

Thanks for joining in. Isn't it awesome how you picked the frigging Inquisition as undoubtedly the safest example of Christianity gone amuck -- and were immediately jumped as a dangerous anti-Catholic chauvinistic cow-tipper? How dare you deny those hardworking papists their god-given first amendment right to uh, burn us at the stake? You HATER !!!All with a straight face, too. It's a funny world, man Anyway, you and Huntard were having a nice discussion about how the New Testament mediates Old Testament legalism, the universality of the Ten Commandments, etc. I think this could lead somewhere very much worth going. A couple paragraphs about the ethical imperatives in the Dominical sayings. Examples from your own life. Yeah?

This is a either a deliberate misrepresentation or a willful failure to understand. The attitude that both Dawkins and Miller share is this: the physical evidence, which has been observed and confirmed carefully and repeatedly, makes it clear that evolution has been happening for hundreds of millions of years, and no amount of religious apologetics can alter what the evidence is telling us.There's no disagreement between the two of them about what the physical evidence is, or about the mechanisms and time-lines that provide the best explanations for that evidence. Whether Miller is being "dishonest" or simply self-delusional about the underlying or initial causation is NOT a minor point. (To me, it's a major mystery.) But it's entirely beside the point, relative to the validity of the assertions and predictions that follow from the theory of evolution, and that fit the physical evidence with significant accuracy.Miller's theology, as important and puzzling as it may be, is irrelevant to science; it has no direct bearing on his work in biology, and with respect to his work in biology, you will find no disagreement from Dawkins -- at least, none that can't be resolved through a focused search for new evidence. Are you actually saying that the details about "behavior requirements" in the Bible (e.g. some or all of the 10 commandments, and/or various other directives that tell the believers how to act) are minor details? Well, that sounds great for you! (if you're a selfish sociopath) It certainly doesn't sound good to me... I mean really, talk about moral relativism -- this is it!So now I wonder: what's up with those certain religious believers who are raising such a froth about the "small stuff", like homosexuality and abortion? In your view, these are just minor details, right? What's the big deal? It's not as if all Christians are united against gays and abortion clinics, so these details must be minor ones.Still, every time I see this notion of "differences among Christian sects are minor" being used to downplay the inexorable course of sectarian fractures and friction, I have to ask: if the differences are so minor, then it must be natural for you, as a Christian, to attend services at a wide variety of different denominations. Do you? (I've asked this a few times before here at EvC, and I've never gotten a positive answer.)Dawkins and Miller (and many other scientists, from a wide range of social, national, ethnic and religious backgrounds) attend a wide variety of scientific meetings, conferences, seminars, courses, and so on, and the only difficulty they have (not a serious one) involves coming up to speed on the methods and terminology of some unfamiliar field of research (e.g. a biologist needs to work a little harder to follow the discussions of astronomers, and vice-versa, but it's readily doable without friction or rancor -- indeed most scientists are eager to learn about other fields and types of research).How easy is it for you to get along in attending meetings of Mormons, as well as Jehovah's witnesses, as well as Baptists, as well as Catholics, as well as Anglicans, as well as 7th Day Adventists, as well as Methodists, as well as Lutherans, as well as... (I'll leave out Greek and Russian Orthodox -- you probably don't speak Greek or Russian, and that's reason enough not to attend. But if they held services in English, you'd have no problem with going there, right?)Since you say the sectarian differences are minor, you must find it easy to attend them all with equanimity, and this must be true for all Christians, so all these schisms are just... what? A matter of economics? Tax incentives? Real estate ventures? Social class differences? Pot-luck dinner preferences? I suppose all of the above contribute in part.Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor rewordingEdited by Otto Tellick, : another minor rewording

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

A: you are misconstruing the meaning of "absolute". What I meant by absolute is that religion tells you "this is the truth. If you question it, you will be damned". Science, not hardly.B: You are conflating evolution and atheism. There are plenty of scientists who accept evolution who are also theists.

---

Since evolutionary biologists can show me how evolution works, i.e. show me evidence, I'm pretty comfortable with them telling me this is how it happened. If an evolutionary biologist were to come out tomorrow and go: "Birds evolved into elephants!", and when asked for evidence says: "Well, i think they did", you can be damn sure I won't believe him.Also, of course, science doesn't claim it has the absolute truth.

Then you're not looking at all the evidence, for there are scientists who don't accept evolution (as creationists are always so fond of pointing out), yet this is a minority. There are also atheists that don' accept evolution. Again, this is (probably) a minority.So, no, evolution is not absolute in the "scientific/atheist community".

Hi hooah, I've really been enjoying your posts lately. I've been meditating on this one pretty hard, because I don't want to come off as just disagreeing with you; but I do hope that I can add something to your understanding, or clarify things maybe, if I'm smart enough. Agree really hard. And when you read it that way, as literature, you can see that there are different genres involved. And these have to be dealt with in different ways, yes? Here's where I think things get too fuzzy. It is allegory, amongst many other things. Just as an example, the bit that bred this thread, the Deluge myth, is three different strands of literature woven together. At the bottom is a narrative text culled off some ancient poetry, full of puns and language-rich material. Basically similar to the Viking sagas. Then on top of that is a folk tale from oral tradition, that evolved in the course of the ministry of the northern prophets. Then on top of that is a set of inline notes and commentary from the Persian restoration.So while it has elements of allegory, it isn't open to "a multitude of interpretations, none more right or wrong than the next." It tells you right in the text what the interpretation is. This part, the rainbow for example, means he learned his lesson. No matter how bad he fucks up, he won't just erase the chalkboard and start over again. It repenteth him that he made us, sure; but it also repenteth him that he drowned us. He is learning from his mistakes, he is trying to improve. This process continues, covenant after covenant, until he steps up and takes full responsibility for the whole mess.The lying buck-passing apologetics that you are concerned about, isn't a legitimate interpretation of the text. The text is all about giving up idolatry, step by step. The apologetics is about making the text into a new idol.

Thanks. Can't say I expected anyone to give two hoots about anything I type. I suppose I could have clarified my position. I see the bible two ways:1: read literally for debate because the religious types I feel I am up against read it literally. I could give two shits about the weekend warrior christians who don't shove god in my face and try and warp MY kids minds.2: read as allegory for what it actually is. I wholeheartedly realize that the bible is no more than a fairytale book and I chalk it up with the like of Zeus, Thor, Odin, Poseidon etc.. If only it would stay there...... Ok, you tell me then: who is right and why? Let me guess: you are. AmIright? What rainbow are you talking about? If you want a god who fucks up and can't get it right the first 3 times, be my guest. I have to ask though: is it worth dedicating your life to a no-good hack? And there it is: "my way of reading it is right, yours isn't".

---

I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit. I've been assuming that you are familiar with this story. You see? It tells you right there what that part Means. It isn't a matter of what I want, it's just the plain sense of how the text portrays the character. I don't get to twist it around however I please, that sort of behavior is for people in denial. The story says what it says. No worries there; just as he is depicted as first among idols, so also was he the last. So now they worship the book, about giving up idols. Funny damned world, indeed.

Do you also see evidence, or even "~evidence~" that the "scientific/atheist community" agrees that 2 + 2 = 4?

I'm pretty sure someone somewhere could come up with a different interpretation for that. Yes, he is quite the character. Just like Pennywise in the movie IT. See, there you go again. "If you don't read it theway I do, you're in denial." It must be awesome to be right all the time and tell everyone else they are wrong. Not sure what you mean there, but it sounds preachy. If so, save it for someone else. The only idol I care about is Billy. Plus, i don't get into philisophical arguments about fairy tales. You can be that deluded into it if you like, but count me out.

---

Allow me to try: The cloud is bowing down, in other words looking down on the earth. Looking down on something shows contempt for it. God is telling us here he looks down in contempt on us. Here he threatens mankind by saying he will remember his covenant, meaning that if we break it again (when this is is arbitrarily set by him), he will smite the earth again. Here he tells us that water will not be the means in which he smites the earth once more. One can only dread at the terrible things he will do to it instead.So, here we have god telling us how contemptible we are to him, and that he will smite the earth with terrible things (not just water) whenever he feels like we deserve it.