32: Godless

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

Now I think you're just messing with me. You use the word proof twice in countering claims. Here are two quotes from the same post you made, just a couple of paragraphs apart (emphasis mine).


First you say that there's proof of a world wide flood then you say that a world wide flood has been debunked. Perhaps you have a different definition of proof than I do?

If we're going to continue this debate, please spend more than 2 minutes of Google searching because what you found is a joke. I spent a little time reading and researching the author and found that the author of that first article is a joke. He's the same guy who wrote that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old.

The internet is full of junk science like that. Please respect me and other readers of this thread. Don't waste our time with silly sources like that.

If you'd like read a well researched historical investigation from a respected author, check out Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus by Richard Carrier.

I thought you weren't writing anymore

There is proof that there has been a flood at rediculously high points around the world. There is also proof of this smaller Mesapotamian flood. There is proof for both...depends on how you want to apply the proof.

There is an entire branch of science called apologetics that combines science and religion. There are well respected scientists and historians that believe there is proof for a world wide flood. There are people that believe in the aged earth theory. You can find "reputable sources" on both sides.

And I don't think it is a secret that radiometric dating is not reliable after a coule hundred thousand years. Carbon dating doesn't even work on rocks unless there is some sort of organic material on it, and to get a "date" requires some estimations and assumptions which tends to make the date fit whatever timeline the scientist wants it to fit. In fact, Carbon 14 can help proove a young earth theory, since carbon shouldn't even be able to be found in something a million years old.

Honestly, I didn't want to have to find you anything...or work hard to do so, so yeah, I found some stuff on google. You keep trying to pick things apart (like the Cleopatra comments) yet you're not even really reading what I'm trying to say. You're doing the typical "I'm right you're wrong" online arguing where rather than addressing the main point, you nit pick. When I explain your nit pick then you move to the next while overall not going back and saying, "oh yeah, that is a valid point."

I'm not trying to get you to believe anything. I initially tried to show you that there are other ways to look at this subject and you don't get to just say "well that is wrong" because you adamently don't believe it. I still think you were a bully on the show and that you fight as close mindedly about your views as do any other devout religious person.

Now it is MY turn to say I wont write about this anymore. (but I actually mean it)

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by stulagu

I thought you weren't writing anymore

There is proof that there has been a flood at rediculously high points around the world. There is also proof of this smaller Mesapotamian flood. There is proof for both...depends on how you want to apply the proof.

There is an entire branch of science called apologetics that combines science and religion. There are well respected scientists and historians that believe there is proof for a world wide flood. There are people that believe in the aged earth theory. You can find "reputable sources" on both sides.

And I don't think it is a secret that radiometric dating is not reliable after a coule hundred thousand years. Carbon dating doesn't even work on rocks unless there is some sort of organic material on it, and to get a "date" requires some estimations and assumptions which tends to make the date fit whatever timeline the scientist wants it to fit. In fact, Carbon 14 can help proove a young earth theory, since carbon shouldn't even be able to be found in something a million years old.

Honestly, I didn't want to have to find you anything...or work hard to do so, so yeah, I found some stuff on google. You keep trying to pick things apart (like the Cleopatra comments) yet you're not even really reading what I'm trying to say. You're doing the typical "I'm right you're wrong" online arguing where rather than addressing the main point, you nit pick. When I explain your nit pick then you move to the next while overall not going back and saying, "oh yeah, that is a valid point."

I'm not trying to get you to believe anything. I initially tried to show you that there are other ways to look at this subject and you don't get to just say "well that is wrong" because you adamently don't believe it. I still think you were a bully on the show and that you fight as close mindedly about your views as do any other devout religious person.

Now it is MY turn to say I wont write about this anymore. (but I actually mean it)

I stopped taking you seriously when you claimed dinosaurs were just thousands of years old.

To anyone else who might stumble onto this discussion, please note the following: the worlds proof and evidence are thrown around easily and carelessly. There are lots of grand claims which are never backed up. Requests for credible sources were considered nit picking.

Don't fall for this. Challenge everything, including sources. You'll be surprised just how much bull people try to feed you on a daily bases.

It's easy to make grand claims, it's hard to back them up with real evidence. History is full of tall tales and so is the Bible and other religious works.

[Blitzgal]

Our core mission involves:
Promoting separation of government and religion.
Educating the public about our philosophy and practices.
Serving the public good in ways that are exemplary of our values.

Your group sounds awesome. The fact that you also focus on the social good and show that one can be moral without being religious is really great.

I just heard about Oh No! Ross and Carrie on Skeptically Yours. I definitely gotta check it out.

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

I stopped taking you seriously when you claimed dinosaurs were just thousands of years old.

A personal note: I've been thinking about the harsh tone I took in these posts. I should make more of an effort to be polite but pseudoscience and unsubstantiated claims are very damaging and they need to be exposed as such.

Stulagu - I feel that your position is more than incorrect, it's wrong. I'm sorry if I came off as a jerk while trying to express that.

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Your group sounds awesome. The fact that you also focus on the social good and show that one can be moral without being religious is really great.

I just heard about Oh No! Ross and Carrie on Skeptically Yours. I definitely gotta check it out.

Thanks! We've got the AIDS Walk scheduled and Ross (from Oh No! Ross and Carrie) will give a talk at our next event. We're going to record the talk and make it available to our members.

Special Event: AIDS Walk 2012 - Atheists United

Monthly Meeting: Oh No, Ross and Carrie! - Atheists United

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

A personal note: I've been thinking about the harsh tone I took in these posts. I should make more of an effort to be polite but pseudoscience and unsubstantiated claims are very damaging and they need to be exposed as such.

Stulagu - I feel that your position is more than incorrect, it's wrong. I'm sorry if I came off as a jerk while trying to express that.

I guess I will accept your pseudoapology...and I think your attitude has absolutely gone against "Educating the public about our philosophy and practices. Serving the public good in ways that are exemplary of our values."

In this thread and on the show you are not educating the public, you are scolding the public and trying to convert them. I don't like being scolded, even if I do agree with half of the points you are getting across. And you are so eager to prove your points, you aren't listening to the other side and you are belittleing their opinions.

You aren't ok with people talking about how religion can be a comfort and a place to belong, so you just say they are wrong (and insuate they are dumb). I'm not trying to convert you to religion, I'm trying to get you to see another angle.

And you breezed past and misunderstood so many of my points that it was obvious you weren't even registering them, but you wanted me to respect your thoughts? I've had Christians preach at me my whole life, why would I respect an aetheist that does the same?

AND just for your information, I'm currently reading If Walls Could Talk written by a well respected historian and she quotes the Bible when talking about the history of a couple of her topics. Because it is a cultural and historical reference. So while you're warning others to not listen to a word that I'm saying, I'll rebutt with the point that many of your points are overgeneralizations and strictly your opinion. Just like you saying people think the Jews built the pyramids (as your proof that the Bible isn't historically true) stop saying that the Bible isn't of value as an historical document. (and before you blow a gasket, I'm not saying it is all true at all, so don't take that out of context...in fact, I hope you don't respond at all)

And shit, you sucked me in again.

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by stulagu

I guess I will accept your pseudoapology...

My apology was sincere.

Originally Posted by stulagu

I think your attitude has absolutely gone against "Educating the public about our philosophy and practices. Serving the public good in ways that are exemplary of our values." In this thread and on the show you are not educating the public, you are scolding the public and trying to convert them. I don't like being scolded, even if I do agree with half of the points you are getting across. And you are so eager to prove your points, you aren't listening to the other side and you are belittleing their opinions.

I don't feel like I was scolding the public on the show. Can you please tell me when you felt that way so I could take note to try and avoid it in the future?

I do feel I was scolding you during this exchange and deservedly so. You were making claims and backed them up with a ridiculous source that also claims dragons really existed. Your source also claims the age of dinosaurs should be measured in thousands of years, not millions.

Mistakenly making incorrect statements doesn't warrant a scolding, we've all done that. But citing The Age of the Earth as source of evidence does deserve an angry rebuke.

Originally Posted by stulagu

You aren't ok with people talking about how religion can be a comfort and a place to belong, so you just say they are wrong (and insuate they are dumb). I'm not trying to convert you to religion, I'm trying to get you to see another angle.

I'm OK with people talking about how religion can be a comfort and a place to belong. It's my opinion that religion isn't a necessary requirement for comfort and belonging. It's possible to have community without religion. Many people keep religion in their life because they feel community and church go hand in hand. I say, leave the baggage of the church behind and join a secular community that can also give you comfort and belonging.

Originally Posted by stulagu

And you breezed past and misunderstood so many of my points that it was obvious you weren't even registering them, but you wanted me to respect your thoughts? I've had Christians preach at me my whole life, why would I respect an aetheist that does the same?

One of the biggest problems debating these types of issues online is tone, inflection and issue fragmentation. What I mean by fragmentation is how one message covers many different topics and a reply to that message creates even more fragmentation. To avoid that, I tried addressing the most egregious and contradictory claims that you've made.

There's also the matter of my schedule. I wish I had the time to address all the incorrect statements you were making but I can only devote a certain amount of time to these replies.

Originally Posted by stulagu

AND just for your information, I'm currently reading If Walls Could Talk written by a well respected historian and she quotes the Bible when talking about the history of a couple of her topics. Because it is a cultural and historical reference.

Using real locations and some elements of history doesn't make a fictional story true. Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter does the same and we know it's a fictional story. Sure, you could cite the movie as a reference for Abraham Lincoln being President but the story is pure fantasy.

Originally Posted by stulagu

So while you're warning others to not listen to a word that I'm saying, I'll rebutt with the point that many of your points are overgeneralizations and strictly your opinion.

Most of my comments have been requests for evidence of your claims. It's not a matter of opinion that you're making unsubstantiated and contradictory claims, it's a matter of fact.

Originally Posted by stulagu

Just like you saying people think the Jews built the pyramids (as your proof that the Bible isn't historically true) stop saying that the Bible isn't of value as an historical document.

I was wrong in saying the Bible claims the Jews built the pyramids, that was the influence of my Hebrew school and other religious propaganda. However, the Bible does claim Jews were Egyptian slaves which I understand to be a fictional story. The Jews were not slaves in Egypt.

Originally Posted by stulagu

(and before you blow a gasket, I'm not saying it is all true at all, so don't take that out of context...in fact, I hope you don't respond at all)

This is the same problem of tone that I mentioned before. I use strong words in my replies but I'm not blowing a gasket. I enjoy having these conversations because they help me understand different view points and hone my arguments.

So, which parts of the Bible do you think are true?

Originally Posted by stulagu

And shit, you sucked me in again.

Damn, you got me too

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

My apology was sincere.

I don't feel like I was scolding the public on the show. Can you please tell me when you felt that way so I could take note to try and avoid it in the future?

I do feel I was scolding you during this exchange and deservedly so. You were making claims and backed them up with a ridiculous source that also claims dragons really existed. Your source also claims the age of dinosaurs should be measured in thousands of years, not millions.

Mistakenly making incorrect statements doesn't warrant a scolding, we've all done that. But citing The Age of the Earth as source of evidence does deserve an angry rebuke.

I'm OK with people talking about how religion can be a comfort and a place to belong. It's my opinion that religion isn't a necessary requirement for comfort and belonging. It's possible to have community without religion. Many people keep religion in their life because they feel community and church go hand in hand. I say, leave the baggage of the church behind and join a secular community that can also give you comfort and belonging.

One of the biggest problems debating these types of issues online is tone, inflection and issue fragmentation. What I mean by fragmentation is how one message covers many different topics and a reply to that message creates even more fragmentation. To avoid that, I tried addressing the most egregious and contradictory claims that you've made.

There's also the matter of my schedule. I wish I had the time to address all the incorrect statements you were making but I can only devote a certain amount of time to these replies.

Using real locations and some elements of history doesn't make a fictional story true. Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter does the same and we know it's a fictional story. Sure, you could cite the movie as a reference for Abraham Lincoln being President but the story is pure fantasy.

Most of my comments have been requests for evidence of your claims. It's not a matter of opinion that you're making unsubstantiated and contradictory claims, it's a matter of fact.

I was wrong in saying the Bible claims the Jews built the pyramids, that was the influence of my Hebrew school and other religious propaganda. However, the Bible does claim Jews were Egyptian slaves which I understand to be a fictional story. The Jews were not slaves in Egypt.

This is the same problem of tone that I mentioned before. I use strong words in my replies but I'm not blowing a gasket. I enjoy having these conversations because they help me understand different view points and hone my arguments.

So, which parts of the Bible do you think are true?

Damn, you got me too

Thank you for telling me your apology was sincere. However it felt like the equivilent of "I'm sorry I punched you in the face, but you deserved it"

On the show you interrupted Myq constantly and while he was trying to explain alternative views you wouldn't let him even finish a thought.

Yes, some sources I pointed to weren't reliable. Like I said, I did a quick search because you were asking. I really don't have the energy for this, the only reason I'm answering you now is because you've responded nicely. When I reference something I'm assuming it is general knowledge, which I probably shouldn't do. When asked to provide sources, I certainly can't remember a lecture from 10 years ago.

When it comes to discussions like this I do resort to blanket statements, it is just easier. When I say historians use the Bible for cultural references, I mean it, and it is true. But I can't sit and go find all of the different history books I've read that site the Bible...it is too much. And I don't mean this sarcastically, I tend to not read fiction but historical biographies, so I have read a few (especially ones dealing with ancient figures) that refer to the Bible as a source. I don't read much anymore, though...three kids under 6 and a business keeps me from hobbies =)

Many people are religious without a church home. Many people go to church for the community and don't believe the majority of what is being said. I don't believe in atheism, you don't believe in some sort of higher being. My original point to all of this (I believe, though that may have been muddied in all this) is that there is no proof either way how the earth was created, so why not let people believe what they want.

I've honestly seen some pretty crazy shit in my life. I've felt healing hands and I've seen two visions. I may have even experienced a miracle (though I wouldn't argue that one way or the other). I firmly believe there is something out there that is more than just us plodding around and then dying. If that is just a subdued higher consience trying to find explinations, I don't know. I've never been able to pray, I feel like it is cocky to tell God to do something piddly and little for me when there are children dying of starvation and we are two temper tantrums away from world war three. But I feel there is something more...

I don't think the Bible is a true story, I think, like others have said, that they are cautionary tales that have been handed down generation to generation. I think the Bible CAN be used as an historical document. It documents the rules and culture of the Hebrews and really gives insight to how life was lived back then. It was written by real people, the dates of the documents, language and syntax match up with other ancient texts. It IS used as an historical document. Even though Solomon might not have threatened to cut a baby in half, there was a King named Solomon and he was known as being very wise. Caiaphas is another good example. They have found his tomb in Jeruselem and dated it to be around the same time the Bible talked about Caiaphas leading the crusade to kill Jesus. There are historical people named in the Bible, like Julius Ceasar, Darius, etc.

To refer that to your Vampire Hunter analogy, when Abe Lincoln is slicing apart Vampires, if he is in period dress and speaking the language of the time, you can say the surroundings of the story are accurate even though his actions aren't. That being said, I know they won't use this movie to teach history, but it can be used as an insight to history if you'd like. If there were a ton of other books besides the Bible that talked about that day and age, then maybe the Bible wouldn't be so valuable as an historical document. But like I said before, most art, music, written history, etc was BECAUSE of religion, but that doesn't make it worth less. Handel's Messiah is still a gorgeous piece of music and Europe was brought out of the dark ages because of the Renaissance which was faith based and funded...so does that make the Renaissance not exsist because religion was behind it?

To say there is NO reference to Jesus isn't true. There are some. Just by looking that the word Christian was used in the early AD times says that there was some following after a person with this name. From Pliny the younger to Lucien to Nero, references to him pop up. And there is this one quote (I had to dig for it but finally found it) is from Cornelius Tacitus

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

I mean, this is more than circumstantial. And, no, it doesn't talk about rising from the dead or miracles, etc, but it does mention him in a non Biblical text. And Tacitus is a respected historical source.

Whether he was just a very dynamic man that built up a following and was put to death for speaking out against the Jewish and Roman rulers or however you want to interpret it, historically there is proof of him. Why is it so hard to believe Jesus could have a following and be seen performing miracles? Rasputan was believed to have magical powers to the point of controlling the Russian Emperess (seriously, please don't ask for sources or I'll freak) and he is an accepted historical figure.

I have heard quite a few different explinations about the Jews in Egypt. One is that archeologists are looking at the wrong time in Egyptian history, so they aren't finding evidence because they're looking at the wrong set of Kings. If you look at different groups of kings in Egypt, there are a couple notes and residential evidence of the Jews. Another thought is that they weren't slaves like the movie depicted, and their number wasn't that great, but that they were indentured servants or had fuedal lords.

Honestly, I have heard people very logically explain why global warming doesn't exsist and that eating GMO food can't hurt you. There is someone somewhere that can intelligently speak and defend anything. There are enough facts exsisting in the world that you can pull what you want from where you want and make your argument perfectly plausable.

I think the Bible can easily be taken with a grain of salt, though I know Keith hates this argument. But when you're looking at any ancient text that has been written over hundreds of years, it is looking at the overall message of the book and the history of the people, and the themes of the stories versus counting back exactly 6000 years to try to find when the earth started.

It is coincidental that the three main religions base everything on FAITH so questioning becomes something you can't do. I'm certainly not of fan of organized religion because of what people have done in the name of their god.

And I NEVER said dinosaurs were a thousand years old. I mentioned that carbon dating is not accurate past a couple thousand years at all. The carbon dating of the earth is what many non christians use to try and prove the religions wrong, but their theory is just as flawed. Just trying to prove a point that neither side really knows.

Ok, and seriously I am done. I wish you the best and know you are a very smart man who is coming from a good place. Hopefully all of us can just figure out how to coexsist in peace.

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by stulagu

And I NEVER said dinosaurs were a thousand years old. I mentioned that carbon dating is not accurate past a couple thousand years at all. The carbon dating of the earth is what many non christians use to try and prove the religions wrong, but their theory is just as flawed. Just trying to prove a point that neither side really knows.

I'm not going to jump too far into this one, but this is such bullshit. Equating the creationist claim that the Earth is 6000 years old with scientific estimates based on radiometric dating that the Earth is billions of years old is so beyond a false equivalence, I don't think the term false equivalence accurately represents how insanely bullshit it is. The creationist claim is based on a timeline provided by a series of historical writings that as you've indicated were cobbled together by multiple people over hundreds of years, and translated many times over. We have precise examples of how the Bible has been twisted and re-interpreted to force it to conform with current political belief -- just see how the Evangelicals have changed the translation to keep it more in line with their pro-life platform here: Mischief follows in partisan Bible translations

Current scholarship suggests that Revelation was not written about some future apocalypse, but about current events that were going on with the Roman emperor Nero at the time that it was written. But how do Christians today interpret the book? As a guideline of the end of the world. And just talk to Evangelicals about their beliefs regarding Israel and how it fits in with Armageddon and the Rapture. Spoiler: It doesn't end well for the Jews.

You yourself have admitted that the Bible should be taken "with a grain of salt." We know for a fact that politics came into play on multiple occasions in determining not only what is included in the Bible but also how it is translated AND that politics continue to come into play in how the Bible is interpreted today. Yet you continue to conflate creationist claims with scientifically tested and peer reviewed claims as if they are both based on faith, and that is just bullshit.

(PZ Myers rides a dinosaur at the Creationist Museum)

[stulagu]

Good lord, my point is that creationism has just as many leaps of faith as the big bang theory. and I am right about carbon dating...it requires a lot of scientific assumptions and when you boil it down, is no where near exact. Everyone is just guessing and racing to prove themselves right on both ends. If we could all just calm the fuck down that would be awesome. I'm not a fan of people saying the dinosaurs were on the ark any more than I am of saying an alien race created us. We don't know. Promethius could be right for all we know (though there is NO way you give yourself a C section and then go kick alien butt a half hour later...big suspension of disbelief on that end!)

Ok. all done. I'm not reading any more of this thread.

[Abby]

This conversation is very indepth...

Firstly I very much liked the point Michael made about Religion not being the cause of wars, etc, but merely the tool used by a person to get people (who are guillable most of the time) to follow them.

Proof Jesus did exsist: I read a book called the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Apparently this man was an athiest who's wife had converted to Christianity. He used his skills as a court reporter to put the Evidence that Jesus exisited "onto the stand" and see how it holds up.

Though there can be no evidence for or against God (or the fact that Jesus was God), the fact that Jesus existed holds up by Christian and Atheist scientists.

Luke was a Historian (the book of Luke) in the book, the geographical and historical information was accurate. Also, Jesus is mentioned outside of the New testiment and bible. Josephus was a first-century Jewish Historian who's writings mention James and Jesus.

"He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having trangressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned" - The Antiquities by Josephus. This information was provided by Edwin M Yamauchi, PHD

Proof outside of religious text. Is this enough to be taken as fact?

I don't believe everything the bible says, and I don't go to Church.

But you have to admit there may be a chance that there is something bigger than you, that you don't understand, somewhere that can be classified as what we named "God"

When Chemda was talking about that "magical feeling" she thinks people call God. I have a theory that there is ONE God, throughout all religion, and people are getting the message different. And Atheists

I'd like to know why you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are not credible enough to be taken historically accurate?

Also - the Big Bang Theory... why can't I believe in everything science has proven? My God made science. My God created the universe (through the big bang?) and he put life on earth (and possibly used evolution?)