ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete

[Balder]

Redfin wrote:
Great link to a brilliant debate! :thumb: Thanks, Clete.

Yes, I'd noticed the link on Hilston's signatures, but I never clicked on it. I just listened to it after endorsements from you and Clete, and it was interesting. I see now where Hilston gets a lot of his rhetorical devices and his broad claims.

Peace,
B.

 

[Redfin]

Yes, Balder. I don't think that atheism really got a fair shake there though. Dr. Stein didn't seem to be up to the challenges he faced, in several different respects. But it certainly helped me to see how the pre-supp operates "in the field," so to speak.

Hilston or Clete, are there any examples available of pre-suppositionalists dealing with more competent adversaries?

 

[Clete]

Brief Biography of
Gordon S. Stein​

Name: Gordon S. Stein

Born (YYYY.MM.DD): 1941.??.??
Died (YYYY.MM.DD): 1996.08.27

Occupation (upon death):

• * senior editor, Free Inquiry magazine
  * consultant, Committe for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal
  * director, Center for Inquiry Libraries

Degrees:

• * Library Science Management, University of Rochester, Adelphi College and UCLA
  * Ph.D. Physiology, Ohio State University

Publications:

• * editor, The American Rationalist magazine
  * editor, Encyclopedia of the Paranormal (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1996)
  * editor, Encyclopedia of Hoaxes (Detroit, Gale Research, 1993)
  * The Sorcerer of Kings: The Case of Daniel Dunglas Home and William Crookes (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1993)
  * editor, God Pro and Con: A Bibliography of Atheism (New York: Garland, 1990)
  * editor, A Second Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1987)
  * editor, Encyclopedia of Unbelief (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1985)
  * Freethought in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth: A Descriptive Bibliography (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1981)
  * editor, Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1980)
  * (with Marshall Brown) Freethought in the United States: A Descriptive Bibliography (Wesport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1978)
  * Robert Ingersoll: A Checklist (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1969)

How much more qualified or competent an atheist would you recommend we find?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. The "Take the red pill" link at the bottom of Jim's signature does not take you to this debate although I was turned on to this debate by Jim and I'm sure that he would agree that a connection between the idea of "taking the red pill" (i.e. leaving the matrix) and this debate is an appropriate connection to make.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Balder

Clete,

Yes, I do understand Hilston's argument. It is fairly simple. I do not agree with it, but that's another matter. For the sake of those who may not get what Hilston is saying, this is my take on his claims: Only a Biblical worldview is capable of accounting for the world as we know it, including the reliability of our senses and the trustworthiness of logic. He is not saying that senses can't be trusted; rather, he is making a (rather outrageous) claim that only in a Christian worldview can you rationally account for the operation of your senses, the orderliness of phenomena, the "truth" of mathematics, the operation of laws, the existence of people and objects, etc, etc. His contention is that all other worldviews, all other descriptions of the nature and origin of existence, are internally inconsistent and flawed, and therefore, unless you subscribe to the Christian worldview, you do not have a leg to stand on in critiquing things because you can't rationally account (he claims) for anything at all.

Brilliant! This is precisely correct!

(But beware -- if you begin to show that you can account for things in a coherent manner, he will accuse you of stealing from his worldview!)

He will do more that accuse you of such but will demonstrate that it is so. Always remember, saying it doesn't make it so.

Concerning the cosmological views presented in the Bible, there is no reason to believe that the Biblical references to the firmament separating the waters, etc, were believed to be figurative. I can understand why you would want to call them figurative, because they are so contrary to modern understanding and it is hard to believe that people really believed that at one time, but the writers of the Bible were not alone in possessing a three-tiered picture of the universe, nor in imagining that the sky was actually a physical dome, nor in imagining that the sun and stars actually moved around the sky by some sort of mechanism (say, the wind or chariots), nor that there was a huge body of water on the other side of the stars, etc. Similar ideas were held by their neighbors, the Egyptians and the Babylonians. People in many cultures during that time believed the sky was a real dome, studded with stars, which actually was fashioned by God or the gods, which rested on the far ends of the Earth, where gates regulated the coming and going of heavenly (often anthropomorphized) bodies. The writers of the Old Testament also make it clear that they believe the Earth rests on top of primal, chaotic waters.

Because I am impressed with your intellectual honesty I will grant your request for a response to this post. However, I will not comment further on this topic on this thread beyond this one post; it would distract from the main point of the topic at hand.

What the Biblical writers believed is irrelevant, what former Christians believed is irrelevant, what Christians today believe is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Bible actually teaches and whether or not that teaching is in agreement with reality, which it is, and must be because of the impossibility of the contrary.

Enoch may not be included presently among the inspired books, but that may be because it was "lost" for a long time; certainly Jude and other writers refer to it a number of times, and even the Book of Revelation repeats language from it. So these writers held it in esteem.

Who or what Biblical writers held in esteem apart from the Lord God Jesus Christ is utterly and totally irrelevant especially if that thing was in conflict with the Bible itself. The point is that Enoch is not in the Bible and is therefore not to be considered of divine origin.

Anyway, I wrote my last post in a tongue-in-cheek way, yes, but I was serious in my intent: the Biblical worldview is actually quite different from our present one, and much closer to what we call the mythological worldviews of the many different peoples who lived during that time. If you want to consider the Bible to be perfect and infallible, insisting that the worldview found therein is the only logical and rationally defensible one, then intellectual honesty at least should compel you to reckon with the very different beliefs about the nature of the physical universe that the Bible conveys.

There is no such actual difference. Again, the way ancient peoples interpreted the Bible is not relevant to what the Bible actually teaches. If they interpreted the Bible in such a way as to think that it taught that the Earth is the unmoving center of all that exists (which they did) then they were wrong that's all. They were wrong about their belief about the way the world was and they were wrong in their interpretation of the Bible. And I put it in that order for a reason. They did not (for the most part) read the Bible and then make proclamations about the way the world is, what most early theologians did was to listen to Aristotle and the proclamations that he made about how the world worked and then read his teachings into the Bible. The very same thing is still continuing to this day.

While I'm sure that this response raises more questions that it answers for you, I would really rather not continue this discussion here at this time. I do appreciate your ability to at least understand my argument on this thread and the courage you've displayed in acknowledging it as something more than smoke and mirrors or BS as some here have called it. Even though you have not been persuaded, you are a pleasure to converse with and an excellent example of the way people on TOL should conduct themselves (including me).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Soulman]

Daddy, read me a "Bible" story. You know, the one where the priest hacks his concubine to pieces after allowing her to be gang-raped?

How does that degenerate episode fit into your precious "biblical worldview," Clete? What's your recommendation...should we read it to the kiddies as a bedtime story -- or save it for a special occasion, like Devil's Night?

Resting in Me,
Soulman

 

[1PeaceMaker]

There is no need for that attack, Soulman.

Be more honest with yourself. You will convince no one with inflammitory remarks like that.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by Balder

"The notion that the sky was a vast solid dome seems to have been common among the ancient peoples whose ideas of cosmology have come down to us. Thus the Egyptians conceived the heavens to be an arched iron ceiling from which the stars were suspended by means of cables (Chabas, LÆAntiquiteÆ historique, Paris, 1873, pp. 64-67). Likewise to the mind of the Babylonians the sky was an immense dome, forged out of the hardest metal by the hand of Merodach (Marduk) and resting on a wall surrounding the earth (Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier, Strasburg, 1890, pp. 253, 260). According to the notion prevalent among the Greeks and Romans, the sky was a great vault of crystal to which the fixed stars were attached, though by some it was held to be of iron or brass. That the Hebrews entertained similar ideas appears from numerous biblical passages. In the first account of the creation (Gen., i) we read that God created a firmament to divide the upper or celestial from the lower or terrestrial waters. The Hebrew word means something beaten or hammered out, and thus extended; the Vulgate rendering, firmamentum corresponds more closely with the Greek stereoma (Septuagint, Aquila, and Symmachus), something made firm or solid. The notion of the solidity of the firmament is moreover expressed in such passages as Job, xxxvii, 18, where reference is made incidentally to the heavens, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass. The same is implied in the purpose attributed to God in creating the firmament, viz. to serve as a wall of separation between the upper and lower of water, it being conceived as supporting a vast celestial reservoir; and also in the account of the deluge (Gen., vii ), where we read that the flood gates of heaven were opened, and shut up (viii, 2). (Cf. also IV 28 sqq.) Other passages e.g. Is., xlii, 5, emphasize rather the idea of something extended: Thus saith the Lord God that created the heavens and stretched them out (Cf. Is., xliv, 24, and xl, 22). In conformity with these ideas, the writer of Gen., i, 14-17, 20 represents God as setting the stars in the firmament of heaven, and the fowls are located beneath it, i.e. in the air as distinct from the firmament. On this point as on many others, the Bible simply reflects the current cosmological ideas and language of the time."

The heavens are made up of something incredibly strong. They were right. It is called, in M-theory, the "P" brane. M-theory is the theory of everything. Have you heard of it?

Originally posted by Balder

So, my question is, why should we hold a book which preserves (and in fact takes for granted) such beliefs about the nature of the Cosmos to be the only valid foundation for rational knowledge and the verification of all truth claims?

I do not say this. Wherever the voice of reason speaks, it is the Logos. The Word.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Soulman

Daddy, read me a "Bible" story. You know, the one where the priest hacks his concubine to pieces after allowing her to be gang-raped?

How does that degenerate episode fit into your precious "biblical worldview," Clete? What's your recommendation...should we read it to the kiddies as a bedtime story -- or save it for a special occasion, like Devil's Night?

Resting in Me,
Soulman

Which of the following actions would you concider to be morally wrong?

• 1. Intentionally allowing one's concubine to be gang raped.
  2. Hacking a ganged raped concubine to death.
  3. Reading Biblical stories to one's children at bedtime.
  4. Reading Biblical storied to one's children on Devil's night.

You can pick one or more of the above four options. Please explain your answer.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Don't bother, Clete.

Soulman just wasn't using his head when he wrote that.

 

[Redfin]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Brief Biography of
Gordon S. Stein​

*snip*

How much more qualified or competent an atheist would you recommend we find?

Well, I was hoping for one who wouldn't already be reduced to spluttering near-incoherence only 1/3 of the way through the encounter!

Just goes to show that an impressive looking curriculum vitae doesn't necessarily indicate qualification or competence.

So, am I to conclude that these encounters are always such a duck shoot? :think:

I tend to be impressed with a stance to some degree based on the quality of opposition which it has overcome. That was the only element lacking in this debate. Otherwise, it was great.

 

[Royal_Lion04]

Originally posted by dotcom

Originally posted by Royal_Lion04



"We" meaning who? Atheists and Liberals?

Religion will NEVER be obsolete. That infact, was one of prodical's assertions. If he was not self-obsessed with his own thoughts and started listening to what other people write, he could have seen jjjg's post:

http://theologyonline.com/forums//showthread.php?postid=630284#post630284

To waste a lot of time claiming religion is obsolete without points to back it up is atheistic, irrational, utopian, illusive, childish and uncalled for.

We....meaning Prodigal and me! But that is where our agreement ends!

Religion is obsolete. But a personal relationship with God is not. Big difference!!!

 

[Balder]

Hi, Clete,

Thank you for your comments about my conduct on TOL. I know you said you do not want to continue this conversation with me, but I would like to at least post a response to your letter and then you may decide whether any elements of that response are on topic enough to pursue, or if you just want to leave well enough alone.

Balder wrote:
(But beware -- if you begin to show that you can account for things in a coherent manner, he will accuse you of stealing from his worldview!)

He will do more that accuse you of such but will demonstrate that it is so. Always remember, saying it doesn't make it so.

I agree that saying so doesn't make it so, and the invitation is extended to Hilston to demonstrate his claims. So far, I believe he has "said so" more than "demonstrated," but the conversation is still young.

What the Biblical writers believed is irrelevant, what former Christians believed is irrelevant, what Christians today believe is irrelevant.

This generates several responses, and to the degree that they deal with the obsolescence of the Biblical worldview, I think they are on topic, but I'll leave that to you to decide. The first response is just to point out that the Bible does in fact teach that God created the firm vault of heaven (firmament) to separate the celestial ocean from the terrestial ocean, that God opens "floodgates" in that vault to let the upper waters pour down, that God created the Earth prior to the stars or other luminaries, that God in fact stands on top of this dome and looks down at us (through the clouds, according to Job, and from a vantage which makes us look like grasshoppers, according to Isaiah), that the ends of the vault of heaven touch down on the earth, that heaven itself is supported by pillars, etc. In other words, the Bible actually presupposes the three-tiered, enclosed-dome cosmological worldview I've been describing.

A second response is to ask you how you can ever determine what the Bible actually teaches, if the beliefs of Christians throughout history (including the writers of the Bible itself) are irrelevant. If the early writers and readers of the Bible could read their presuppositions into the Bible without noticing any contradictions or inconsistencies, and other Christians throughout history could do the same, including up to the present, how can you ever determine what the Bible says in itself? Clearly, you are reading the Bible with the beliefs and presuppositions of a 21st Century man, and you are therefore compelled to regard all of the cosmological descriptions of vaults, storehouses, etc, as figurative, because otherwise you would have to reject what the Bible is saying. But how do you know what the Bible really teaches, then, if you are reading your own extra-Biblical presuppositions and beliefs into it?

Really, if the Bible describes the world in a certain way, and that way is consistent with the worldviews of surrounding influential cultures of that day, then the most intellectually honest conclusion is that that is indeed what the writers of the Bible believed, and what the Bible itself teaches. And if that is the case, then the question remains: how is the Bible not obsolete, in this regard? How can it be regarded as the only valid source of knowledge about the universe, and the only valid ground of logic and rationality, when the model of the universe it describes has been thoroughly refuted by modern evidence?

What is relevant is what the Bible actually teaches and whether or not that teaching is in agreement with reality, which it is, and must be because of the impossibility of the contrary.

Why is the contrary impossible? The only reason I can see that you would consider it to be impossible is because if elements of the Bible were shown not to be in agreement with reality, then your presupposition that the Bible is perfect and infallible would be severely challenged, if not completely undermined. The impossibility, therefore, is in the minds of those with a particular faith commitment; it is not a logical necessity.

There is no such actual difference. Again, the way ancient peoples interpreted the Bible is not relevant to what the Bible actually teaches. If they interpreted the Bible in such a way as to think that it taught that the Earth is the unmoving center of all that exists (which they did) then they were wrong that's all. They were wrong about their belief about the way the world was and they were wrong in their interpretation of the Bible. And I put it in that order for a reason. They did not (for the most part) read the Bible and then make proclamations about the way the world is, what most early theologians did was to listen to Aristotle and the proclamations that he made about how the world worked and then read his teachings into the Bible. The very same thing is still continuing to this day.

Including with you, it seems, since you are reading your modern extra-Biblical presuppositions into the Bible and saying, "This is what it really says."

Peace,
Balder

 

[Soulman]

“Peacemaker…”

…apt.

If Clete is correct, then he should have no problem explaining how this particular episode “fits” in his “biblical worldview.” My prediction is that he’ll shift the blame. That this account, and many others, just as depraved, are glossed over and should NOT be read to children, under ANY circumstances, is the point. Much of the Bible isn’t fit for ADULTS to read.

Here’s a question: If The Holy Bible was a movie, with every scene depicted in all its Gibson glory, what “rating” would it receive? Would Christians attend it, or picket it? Let Clete defend this X-rated horror movie he likes to dress up in Sunday-go-to-meetin’ clothes and call a “biblical worldview.”

To answer your question, Clete, depends on the story, doesn’t it. Reading an age-appropriate “Bible story” to a child is not, in and of itself, “immoral.”

Teaching a trusting child that snakes can sometimes talk, that the Bible, and only the Bible is true, and that they’ll go to hell if they don’t believe in Jesus, IS.

Resting in Me,
Soulman

 

[Balder]

Hi, 1PeaceMaker,

The heavens are made up of something incredibly strong. They were right. It is called, in M-theory, the "P" brane. M-theory is the theory of everything. Have you heard of it?

I am somewhat familiar with string theory and superstring theory, but I haven't read much about the "master" theory that is developing out of them. These subjects are quite interesting to me, but I do not think the Biblical writers were talking about the P-brane when they were describing the hard vault of the sky...unless of course you believe that there is an ocean at the far edge of the universe, and that the hard P-brane separates that ocean from us (except, of course, when it rains).

Peace,
Balder

 

[OMEGA]

AIRHEADS

AIRHEADS

================================
We agree on one thing; religion IS obsolete!
================================

SO , WHY THE HECK ARE YOU " P-BRANES

WASTING YOUR TIME HERE ON TOL ????

-- > GO JOIN A VAN HALEN OR LED ZEPLIN

OR NIRVANA FORUM

AND BLOW YOUR MINDS .:thumb:

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Soulman

Daddy, read me a "Bible" story. You know, the one where the priest hacks his concubine to pieces after allowing her to be gang-raped?

How does that degenerate episode fit into your precious "biblical worldview," Clete? What's your recommendation...should we read it to the kiddies as a bedtime story -- or save it for a special occasion, like Devil's Night?

Resting in Me,
Soulman

:chuckle:

After that share Lot's incestual tag-team and Judah's encounter with the harlot on the side of the road.

Giddy up!

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Soulman
To answer your question, Clete, depends on the story, doesn’t it. Reading an age-appropriate “Bible story” to a child is not, in and of itself, “immoral.”

Teaching a trusting child that snakes can sometimes talk, that the Bible, and only the Bible is true, and that they’ll go to hell if they don’t believe in Jesus, IS.

Why?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Soulman

Lighthouse, just meant there's no point in arguing about something neither one of us can prove. Just goes round and round. As a technical matter, from your point of view, all you CAN say is that I had no faith or relationship to throw away. My only point would be that you are not saying anything I wouldn't have said when I was a Christian. All rather predictable. There is, however, no reason for you to assume that YOU are immune to deception. Every ex-Christian I've ever met "thought" they were saved -- before they woke up. You can say nothing more than that. There's no way you can "know" such a thing for a certainty until the Final Judgment.

What's worse? Finding out later that you were deceived ("I never knew you"), or finding out now ("It's all a crock")?

Soulman

There are other ways to find out you were decieved. I would not want to be one to whom Christ says He never knew them. But I also know it's not a crock. But I have held beliefs, which are common in modern "Christianity," that are all lies.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by wickwoman

You know it really bugs me when people use scripture as a weapon and take quotes out of the context in which they were contained:

Matthew 7


Judging Others

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

There you go Clete, buddy, that scripture has your name all over it. Enjoy!

You obviously missed the last sentence of the part you bolded. Read verse 5 again. And, since you posted verse six, do you want us to stop talking to you? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by dotcom

"We" meaning who? Atheists and Liberals?

Religion will NEVER be obsolete. That infact, was one of prodical's assertions. If he was not self-obsessed with his own thoughts and started listening to what other people write, he could have seen jjjg's post:

http://theologyonline.com/forums//showthread.php?postid=630284#post630284

To waste a lot of time claiming religion is obsolete without points to back it up is atheistic, irrational, utopian, illusive, childish and uncalled for.

dotcom-
Royal_Lion04 is saying what I, and logos_x [his brother], said. Religion [as a system] is obsolete. A relationship with Christ is what matters. Not a religious system.