Theists, how do you explain the formation of races? [Kill Em With Kindness]

Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Theists, how do you explain the formation of races? [Kill Em With Kindness]

This is just another question thrown out there for the theists, but how did races form?  Like Anglo-Saxon, African, Asian, South American, etc., from two people (Adam and Eve)?  I mean, if Adam and Eve were of the same race (and the Bible says nothing against this), how did all the different races form?


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I do wish that people would

I do wish that people would stop using "theist" in such an obtuse manner.

 Specificity in cases like these shows a lot of consideration, and would be much appreciated.

 

Theist --/--> Biblical literalist.

Theist --/--> Creationist.

Theist --/--> Christian

...

Starting to make sense? 


thormos
thormos's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: I do

LosingStreak06 wrote:

I do wish that people would stop using "theist" in such an obtuse manner.

Specificity in cases like these shows a lot of consideration, and would be much appreciated.

 

Theist --/--> Biblical literalist.

Theist --/--> Creationist.

Theist --/--> Christian

...

Starting to make sense?

 

Its probably because people don't like the Biblical literalist, see christians as their largest local problem, and would prefer to argue with them.

Your not obnoxious enough to be taken into considerationLaughing

"Everyone knows that God drives a Plymouth: "And He drove Adam And Eve from the Garden of Eden in His Fury."
And that Moses liked British cars: "The roar of Moses' Triumph was heard throughout the hills."
On the other hand, Jesus humbly drove a Honda but didn't brag about it, because in his own words: "I did not speak of my own Accord." "


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: I do

LosingStreak06 wrote:

I do wish that people would stop using "theist" in such an obtuse manner.

 Specificity in cases like these shows a lot of consideration, and would be much appreciated.

 

Theist --/--> Biblical literalist.

Theist --/--> Creationist.

Theist --/--> Christian

...

Starting to make sense? 


Thanks for acknowledging that there are distinct, mutually-contradicting characteristics which differentiate not only religions, buts sects and individual interpretations. So many believers try to play games of equivocation, and shore up their numbers by pretending all beliefs are basically the same.


thormos
thormos's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
To get back on topic.

To get back on topic.

A scary answer you could get is the one The Mormon church had.

That the darker skinned races got their colour as a punishment from god for being sinful.

Though I doubt any church would openly hold such notions I wouldn't be to surprised to find a few that held them.

On a more humorous note this was sort of the topic of a boondocks episode.

The Passion of Rev. Ruckus

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/2/130

"Everyone knows that God drives a Plymouth: "And He drove Adam And Eve from the Garden of Eden in His Fury."
And that Moses liked British cars: "The roar of Moses' Triumph was heard throughout the hills."
On the other hand, Jesus humbly drove a Honda but didn't brag about it, because in his own words: "I did not speak of my own Accord." "


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10322
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Master Jedi Dan wrote: This

Master Jedi Dan wrote:
This is just another question thrown out there for the theists, but how did races form?  Like Anglo-Saxon, African, Asian, South American, etc., from two people (Adam and Eve)?  I mean, if Adam and Eve were of the same race (and the Bible says nothing against this), how did all the different races form?

The average creationist response to this seems to be that they accept "microevolution", which is based on small changes within "kinds"(a term which has never been defined to my liking).

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
thormos wrote: To get back

thormos wrote:

To get back on topic.

A scary answer you could get is the one The Mormon church had.

That the darker skinned races got their colour as a punishment from god for being sinful.

Though I doubt any church would openly hold such notions I wouldn't be to surprised to find a few that held them.

On a more humorous note this was sort of the topic of a boondocks episode.

The Passion of Rev. Ruckus

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/2/130

 

Funny, I was gonna mention the same thing about the Mormon view of how races were created. 

The explanation in a nut shell goes:

 

Nephites = were righteous and remained light-skinned for their righteousness. 

Lamanites and Lemualites = were wicked and were cursed with dark skin and "coarse" hair. 

 

The spelling of the names may be off, I haven't been apart of the religion for 4 years now.  

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
How does evolution account

How does evolution account for different races? IF we all come from Monkies then shouldn't we still all be the same color? (I actually want to know)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10322
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
simple theist wrote: How

simple theist wrote:
How does evolution account for different races? IF we all come from Monkies then shouldn't we still all be the same color? (I actually want to know)

I had written a bit to explain it, but was unsatisfied with my laymans layout. Deludedgod would be the best person to ask I think. You could PM him just in case he doesn't see this thread.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


thormos
thormos's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
There are 2 possible

There are 2 possible explanations.

1. pressure from different habitats.

2. sexual selection.

1:

Different climates puts different pressure on the population.

In a warm climate with lots of sun a dark skincolour is better than a light skincolour, makes you cooler and protects from the harmful effects of the sun.

In a cold climate with less sunlight a light skincolour can be preferable to get the right amount of sunlight whilst not having to worry about the damage from the sun.

Different climate variables can create other differences, high altitude benefits a short body, steppes and flat areas benefit a high body. etc.

2:

There have been cultural penalties on breeding with other people of a different culture.

There could therefore have been a pressure to increase visual differences so one can identify members of different culture, so as to not fall in love with someone your family and society wouldn't accept.

The funny thing here is that such bias toward other cultures are often religious, so religion can be a cause for the differences of races Smile

The strength of such pressures are evident when one considers the amount of genetic variation in the human gene pool.

We humans differ less from each other than most other species.

Any two humans from different races can have more genes in common than two chimpanzees from different areas of Africa.

Edit:  Theres probably a combination involved.


"Everyone knows that God drives a Plymouth: "And He drove Adam And Eve from the Garden of Eden in His Fury."
And that Moses liked British cars: "The roar of Moses' Triumph was heard throughout the hills."
On the other hand, Jesus humbly drove a Honda but didn't brag about it, because in his own words: "I did not speak of my own Accord." "


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The version we learned in

The version we learned in Baptist Sunday school is that the three races  (somehow there were three) decended from the sons of Noah.

Shem begat the Semetic people (hence the name)

Ham begat to dark-skinned Africans

Japeth begat, IIRC, everybody else, or maybe just Europeans.  Sunday school was a long time ago.

I do remember, however, that the "Curse of Ham," that is Ham's descendants being cursed to serve the other two because Ham accidentally saw Noah naked, was still vaguely referred to.  Since then I've learned how this tradition was used to justify slavery in the U.S. in the 18th and 19th centuries (the reason why Southern Baptists originally broke away from the other American Baptists was because of the civil war and the slavery question).

But this tradition of the origins of races is now, I believe, very old-school and probably not remembered or taught most places anymore. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


thormos
thormos's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote:

Textom wrote:
Ham's descendants being cursed to serve the other two because Ham accidentally saw Noah naked

Realy? I'm baffled.

Does this have a bilical refference?

"Everyone knows that God drives a Plymouth: "And He drove Adam And Eve from the Garden of Eden in His Fury."
And that Moses liked British cars: "The roar of Moses' Triumph was heard throughout the hills."
On the other hand, Jesus humbly drove a Honda but didn't brag about it, because in his own words: "I did not speak of my own Accord." "


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:How

simple theist wrote:
How does evolution account for different races? IF we all come from Monkies then shouldn't we still all be the same color? (I actually want to know)

 First, we don't come from monkies. We share a common ancestor with other primates - there is a very distinct and very real and important difference.

Human skin color is a trade off between getting roasted by the sun, making vitamin B and manufacturing vitamin D - where there is not a large availability of VitD or VitB in the local food sources (fish for example are an abundant sourse of D - so Inuit people have comparatively darker skin than other indigenous populations who don't have an animal rich diet on similar latitudes). Humans, and any other related organisms, require exposure to sunlight to manufacture VirD. The amount of melanin in the skin regulates how much UvB is absorbed to make our bones strong and how badly UvA burns. On the other hand, too much sun robs the body of folate (vitamin B).

It is believed that as human ancestors had light skin under their hair. As we evolved to began to lose this hair (it allows for better thermal regulation and reduces parasitic infestation), the skin darkened to reduce VitB deficiency. Cancer would probably not be a selective pressure, as one probably would not develope skin cancer due to UV exposure until after breeding age. Then as our ancestors moved out of Africa, the skin lightened to accomodate VitD production.

 Skin color is easily varied, because it is controlled by several genes - like eye color. 

One can look at the skin color of indigenous populations and see that as one moves away from the equator, the skin gets lighter. This is due to the selective pressure exerted by the need for VitD and the deletorious effects of over-exposure to the sun.

Now one must make an important caveate here concerning the terms we're throwing about.

There are those in the biological community who will disagree with what I'm about to say, and I'd be happy to discuss the matter with them, but in my opinion and the in the opinion of several prominent biologists, race classification in humans is erroneous.

I do not believe there is a solid biological reason to use the race classification for human beings.

When one uses the term race in a biological sense, they are taxonomically implying subspecies categorization – there is absolutely no basis for such categorization in humans.

To understand what a subspecies is, one must first understand what a species is. Famed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr put it succinctly enough that his explanation is still quoted frequently by other biologists to this day: species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". A subspecies is a taxonomic group that is a division of a species and is distinguished by:

1) Members of one subspecies must be reliably distinguishable from members of other subspecies. (You could make the argument that skin pigmentation phenotypes apply here, but you'd be wrong as explained below).

2) The exchange of genetic material between subspecies must be minimal, and expected to remain minimal even if the two groups were placed in close proximity to one another.

3) In order to be regarded as subspecies, rather than a single varied species, the difference between subspecies must be distinct and NOT simply a difference of CONTINUOUSLY VARYING DEGREE. (For example skin color in humans).

Differences of continuously varying degree are called clines, and they are clear evidence of gene flow between populations and thus cause to question subspecies categorization. It is also important to note that the biological definition of subspecies and race are interchangeable; however the biological and colloquial definitions of race are VERY different. To qualify as a biological subspecies or race, a group must meet the above requirements. Examples of human subspecies (two of which are now extinct) are homo sapiens, homo sapiens sapiens (no, the extra sapiens is not a typo) and possibly homo neanderthalis.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote: This

Master Jedi Dan wrote:
This is just another question thrown out there for the theists, but how did races form? Like Anglo-Saxon, African, Asian, South American, etc., from two people (Adam and Eve)? I mean, if Adam and Eve were of the same race (and the Bible says nothing against this), how did all the different races form?

 

Evolution 


thormos
thormos's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

1) Members of one subspecies must be reliably distinguishable from members of other subspecies. (You could make the argument that skin pigmentation phenotypes apply here, but you'd be wrong as explained below).


2) The exchange of genetic material between subspecies must be minimal, and expected to remain minimal even if the two groups were placed in close proximity to one another.

3) In order to be regarded as subspecies, rather than a single varied species, the difference between subspecies must be distinct and NOT simply a difference of CONTINUOUSLY VARYING DEGREE. (For example skin color in humans).

1. Skincolour is not this, but some say facial structures can be or could be sutch a feture.

Richard Dawkins remarks this in his book The ancestors tale.

He specifically uses Collin Powel as an example. His skin is more or less as white as Bush or Cheiny, butpeople still call him "black"

2. In some parts of the world this would still aply, atleast where race and religion are closely realated. Remember interbreeding between races was and may still be a negative even in some western countries.

3. see point 1.

 

While I agree with you and dont think human's realy have subspecies, I wouldn't say that sutch a trend is evident, and can posibly evolve to fully fledged subspecies if not cultural change can stop the speciasion of the human species.

"Everyone knows that God drives a Plymouth: "And He drove Adam And Eve from the Garden of Eden in His Fury."
And that Moses liked British cars: "The roar of Moses' Triumph was heard throughout the hills."
On the other hand, Jesus humbly drove a Honda but didn't brag about it, because in his own words: "I did not speak of my own Accord." "


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
I nearly pissed myself when

Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
thormos

thormos wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

1) Members of one subspecies must be reliably distinguishable from members of other subspecies. (You could make the argument that skin pigmentation phenotypes apply here, but you'd be wrong as explained below).


2) The exchange of genetic material between subspecies must be minimal, and expected to remain minimal even if the two groups were placed in close proximity to one another.

3) In order to be regarded as subspecies, rather than a single varied species, the difference between subspecies must be distinct and NOT simply a difference of CONTINUOUSLY VARYING DEGREE. (For example skin color in humans).

1. Skincolour is not this, but some say facial structures can be or could be sutch a feture.

Richard Dawkins remarks this in his book The ancestors tale.

He specifically uses Collin Powel as an example. His skin is more or less as white as Bush or Cheiny, butpeople still call him "black"

Probably due to other traits like curly head hair - which are also continuously variable. I'm not saying such phenotypes cannot tell us where a person's ancesors came from - they can and do. I'm saying such traits in and of themselves, strictly speaking, are not grounds for such categorization.

Quote:
2. In some parts of the world this would still aply, atleast where race and religion are closely realated. Remember interbreeding between races was and may still be a negative even in some western countries.

I would think any degree of intermixing only supports what I've said, and the culture that do not intermix due to cultural reasons certainly do not counter my point.

I'm arguing from strict taxonomy here. It is a technicle quibble more than anything else.

There is ALWAYS the possibility that isolation COULD result in subsepication or speciation - that's a central tennet of evolution. However, we simply do NOT see this in humans and have not for quite some time - at least not the generations upon generations required for such to manifest.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
thormos wrote: Textom

thormos wrote:

Textom wrote:
Ham's descendants being cursed to serve the other two because Ham accidentally saw Noah naked

Realy? I'm baffled.

Does this have a bilical refference?

The story of the curse starts at Gen 9:20; the curse itself is at Gen 9:25-7.  Note that "Canaan" refers to Ham's descendants:

Gen 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. (26) And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (27) God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

The part where the reading gets very loose is that the conclusion that Ham was the ancestor of Africans is based on a particularly loopy interpretation of the genealogies of  Genesis 10, where some of Ham's offspring travel into parts of Africa.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
There is a difference in

There is a difference in race and ethnicity. That difference would be important when talking about Noah's decendants.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: There

simple theist wrote:
There is a difference in race and ethnicity. That difference would be important when talking about Noah's decendants.

With all due respect, the difference is really only important if Noah actually existed. If he was just a fairy tale, then the ethnicity of his sons really doesn't matter.

The mitochondrial DNA says everybody came out of Africa, and other DNA evidence suggests that everybody's ancestors had dark skin and fair skin is a mutation.  I personally find that evidence more convincing than the story about the guy in the boat with his three sons and the dinosaurs.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: There

simple theist wrote:
There is a difference in race and ethnicity. That difference would be important when talking about Noah's decendants.

No, it's important when talking about the descendants of Eurynome and the sun God Ra. 


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: There

simple theist wrote:
There is a difference in race and ethnicity. That difference would be important when talking about Noah's decendants.

 Speaking of Noah, if the flood happened around about 2,500 BC  according to Bishop Usher how does that tie in with the recorded existence of Nubians in Ancient Egypt as well as the precursors to the Xia dynasty in Ancient China?

Just as a matter of interest because, you know, Noah and his descendants would have had to do a hell of a lot of travelling, breeding and climate adaptation over a very short period of time.

Especially since the early dynastic period of Ancient Egypt kicks off around 2,900 BC with pre-dynastic settlements around back to 5,500 BC.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote: This

Master Jedi Dan wrote:
This is just another question thrown out there for the theists, but how did races form?  Like Anglo-Saxon, African, Asian, South American, etc., from two people (Adam and Eve)?  I mean, if Adam and Eve were of the same race (and the Bible says nothing against this), how did all the different races form?

Let me throw out this response.

I believe that Adam and Eve is nothing more than a "story" in the Bible designed to make a point about sin / choice / etc. 

 I don't take the story literally no more than a reader in the 61st century should take the fact that he saw a passage in a book about a "two faced woman" or the "white man speaks with a forked tongue"  that was written in the 19th century literally.

There are pasaages in the Bible that are historical facts and deal with historical characters. And then there are other passages that are designed to make a point.

I don't believe that the story of Job, for example, deals with a real individual, for example, and that some kind of a "game"  or contest / wager took place between God and Satan.

But I do believe that the story of Job conveys a very important point that is equally important today.

 So to answer your question, we simply evolved, which explains why we have different races. We didn't just evolve from two people.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I dont think any serious

I dont think any serious person thinks Usher's earlier dates are correct.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote:Master

double post


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: There

Broncosfan wrote:

There are pasaages in the Bible that are historical facts and deal with historical characters. And then there are other passages that are designed to make a point.

So how, exactly, do you make an objective distinction between allegory and historical tales?

Quote:
I don't believe that the story of Job, for example, deals with a real individual, for example, and that some kind of a "game"  or contest / wager took place between God and Satan.

Why not, exactly?

Why not believe that, yet believe your savior is the son of God and rose from the dead?

How do you distinguish fact from fiction in the Bible?

Quote:
So to answer your question, we simply evolved, which explains why we have different races. We didn't just evolve from two people.

I'm pleased you do not hold to literal interpretation and embrace science on this point, but it does raise other problems for you, as I've pointed out.

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


AtheistAviB
AtheistAviB's picture
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-06-07
User is offlineOffline
While there are many good

While there are many good questions to be asked of the Creationist as to how they explain all the different races, this questions is not one of them.
This question could just as easily (assuming it actually posed a problem) be thrown back in the face of the evolutionists on the grounds that we all had to come from the same original group of humans.
A better question would be :
How do you explain the perfect layout and fossilization that does not include any 2 species in the same strata that have been dated to different points in history ?


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Job can be reguarded as a

Job can be reguarded as a story becuase it is written as a poem. Not sure if this is what Broncosfan was talking about or not.


AtheistAviB
AtheistAviB's picture
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-06-07
User is offlineOffline
You sure you wanna take that

You sure you wanna take that route?
The entire book of Shir Hashirim (song of songs) was written as a poetic scripture.
If you can throw one thing out on the grounds that it is poetry you'd have to concede to that same methodology for the rest of scripture...


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
AtheistAviB wrote: You sure

AtheistAviB wrote:
You sure you wanna take that route?
The entire book of Shir Hashirim (song of songs) was written as a poetic scripture.
If you can throw one thing out on the grounds that it is poetry you'd have to concede to that same methodology for the rest of scripture...
I was simply offering a reason why Broncosfan may not believe Job to be a real story. I was not stating my own opinion.


AtheistAviB
AtheistAviB's picture
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-06-07
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
AtheistAviB wrote:
You sure you wanna take that route?
The entire book of Shir Hashirim (song of songs) was written as a poetic scripture.
If you can throw one thing out on the grounds that it is poetry you'd have to concede to that same methodology for the rest of scripture...
I was simply offering a reason why Broncosfan may not believe Job to be a real story. I was not stating my own opinion.

Then that would be a comment directed more at him than you.
My apologies, I thought it was your defense.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I really should have

I really should have mentioned that it wasn't my opinion. Eziekel and James both mention Job as a historical person.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: Job

simple theist wrote:
Job can be reguarded as a story becuase it is written as a poem. Not sure if this is what Broncosfan was talking about or not.

 Ah, so clearly all Shakespear is just stories, because it is written in iambic pantameter, but "Moby Dick" is a true account, as it is written in prose.

It is all so clear now.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

simple theist wrote:
Job can be reguarded as a story becuase it is written as a poem. Not sure if this is what Broncosfan was talking about or not.

Ah, so clearly all Shakespear is just stories, because it is written in iambic pantameter, but "Moby Dick" is a true account, as it is written in prose.

It is all so clear now.

Did you even read my post above?


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

simple theist wrote:
Job can be reguarded as a story becuase it is written as a poem. Not sure if this is what Broncosfan was talking about or not.

Ah, so clearly all Shakespear is just stories, because it is written in iambic pantameter, but "Moby Dick" is a true account, as it is written in prose.

It is all so clear now.

Did you even read my post above?

Of course.

You offered a ridiculous defence you thought another person may use, and I responded to it.

Did I miss something?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
simple theist wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

simple theist wrote:
Job can be reguarded as a story becuase it is written as a poem. Not sure if this is what Broncosfan was talking about or not.

Ah, so clearly all Shakespear is just stories, because it is written in iambic pantameter, but "Moby Dick" is a true account, as it is written in prose.

It is all so clear now.

Did you even read my post above?

Of course.

You offered a ridiculous defence you thought another person may use, and I responded to it.

Did I miss something?

What I said was ridiculous. Aparently, for you, I needed to add the rest of the argument for Job not being real person that Broncosfan had already made. The rest of the argument is of course his thought that God would not play some kind of "game" and wager with satin. I also never said that Broncosfan did not have additional reasons and since I've denied what I said was true, currently you have proof that 0 people believe what I said.

Your comments were childish and you do have Core Member right under your name. You should try to give RRS credibility instead of taking it away with comments like you've made.  


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
simple theist wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

simple theist wrote:
Job can be reguarded as a story becuase it is written as a poem. Not sure if this is what Broncosfan was talking about or not.

Ah, so clearly all Shakespear is just stories, because it is written in iambic pantameter, but "Moby Dick" is a true account, as it is written in prose.

It is all so clear now.

Did you even read my post above?

Of course.

You offered a ridiculous defence you thought another person may use, and I responded to it.

Did I miss something?

What I said was ridiculous. Aparently, for you, I needed to add the rest of the argument for Job not being real person that Broncosfan had already made. The rest of the argument is of course his thought that God would not play some kind of "game" and wager with satin. I also never said that Broncosfan did not have additional reasons and since I've denied what I said was true, currently you have proof that 0 people believe what I said.

Now I'm just confused. You made a comment about the Job story being in verse, I made, what I thougt was a cleverly sarcastic retort.

We all agree that the "explaination" you gave was ridiculous and does not adress the rather serious points I posed.

But, none the less, you're going to berrate me. Fine.

Quote:
Your comments were childish and you do have Core Member right under your name. You should try to give RRS credibility instead of taking it away with comments like you've made.

On the contrary, my comments were playful and simply sarcastic - excuse me for not being able to resist an iambic pantameter joke (how ofter does THAT come up?). I'm enjoying this discussion for the most part, I haven't got some sort of nefarious agenda to "trap" you or what not, as you've previously suggested.

I think I've conducted myself in a rather respectful and rather open manner here. I'm really not a bad guy. I am a sarcastic b******d, but I am a good natured sarcastic b******d.

[MOD EDIT - removed swear words per Kill 'Em With Kindness forum rules]

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

There are pasaages in the Bible that are historical facts and deal with historical characters. And then there are other passages that are designed to make a point.

So how, exactly, do you make an objective distinction between allegory and historical tales?

Quote:
I don't believe that the story of Job, for example, deals with a real individual, for example, and that some kind of a "game"  or contest / wager took place between God and Satan.

Why not, exactly?

Why not believe that, yet believe your savior is the son of God and rose from the dead?

How do you distinguish fact from fiction in the Bible?

Quote:
So to answer your question, we simply evolved, which explains why we have different races. We didn't just evolve from two people.

I'm pleased you do not hold to literal interpretation and embrace science on this point, but it does raise other problems for you, as I've pointed out.

To fully answer your question would require a very long response. 

Suffice it to say that I'm able to make objective distinctions between what I bellieve to be allegory versus  (historical) fact by exercising my brain.

 I believe, for example, that the American government / military in the 19th century embarked on a well thought out campaign to eradicate and/or conquer the Sioux.

 There's enough (historical) evidence to make me comfortable with this belief. 

However, I don't believe that so and so Sioux chief actually met/ saw a particular Indian Agent or government official who really had a "forked tongue". But it's there in writing - he was quoted as saying it. And if it's in writing, then it must be true..?? And if he said it, he was a liar..?? Or insane..?? 

No - you and I both know EXACTLY what the Sioux chief meant when he referred to the white man "speaking with a forked tongue".

Well, in many ways, the Bible is much like the above example.

A fool is welcome to believe whatever he / she wants. And there's no shortage of people who have somehow been deluded into thinking that a belief in God entails "blind" faith and the belief that EVERY word in the Bible must be taken literally. 

Perhaps the story of Job is true and that he actually was a living breathing man and that EVERYTHING that was described in the Book of Job is 100% true.

But I don't believe it.


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

simple theist wrote:
Job can be reguarded as a story becuase it is written as a poem. Not sure if this is what Broncosfan was talking about or not.

 Ah, so clearly all Shakespear is just stories, because it is written in iambic pantameter, but "Moby Dick" is a true account, as it is written in prose.

It is all so clear now

 

Yellow_number_Five:

 

I don't know / think the poster provided you with the "clearest" explanation re the distinction - hopefully, my example of conquest of Sioux / forked tongue gives you a better "flavour" of the point I was trying to make.

 

But if my example isn't clear, that's OK too. Understanding everything isn't a prerequisite of getting through this life. 

Alot of people on both sides of the aisle (believers and non-believers) manage to muddle through this world just fine without undertanding everything.

 My wife tells me all the time that I'm one of them..!

 

 


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan

Broncosfan wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

There are pasaages in the Bible that are historical facts and deal with historical characters. And then there are other passages that are designed to make a point.

So how, exactly, do you make an objective distinction between allegory and historical tales?

Quote:
I don't believe that the story of Job, for example, deals with a real individual, for example, and that some kind of a "game"  or contest / wager took place between God and Satan.

Why not, exactly?

Why not believe that, yet believe your savior is the son of God and rose from the dead?

How do you distinguish fact from fiction in the Bible?

Quote:
So to answer your question, we simply evolved, which explains why we have different races. We didn't just evolve from two people.

I'm pleased you do not hold to literal interpretation and embrace science on this point, but it does raise other problems for you, as I've pointed out.

To fully answer your question would require a very long response. 

Suffice it to say that I'm able to make objective distinctions between what I bellieve to be allegory versus  (historical) fact by exercising my brain.

 I believe, for example, that the American government / military in the 19th century embarked on a well thought out campaign to eradicate and/or conquer the Sioux.

 There's enough (historical) evidence to make me comfortable with this belief. 

However, I don't believe that so and so Sioux chief actually met/ saw a particular Indian Agent or government official who really had a "forked tongue". But it's there in writing - he was quoted as saying it. And if it's in writing, then it must be true..?? And if he said it, he was a liar..?? Or insane..?? 

No - you and I both know EXACTLY what the Sioux chief meant when he referred to the white man "speaking with a forked tongue".

Well, in many ways, the Bible is much like the above example.

No, it isn't.

I too can understand metaphor when I read it, however when a book, like the Bible has SEVERAL instances of resurrection (many of which are traditionally accepted to be true by Christians) and divine intervention, your juxtaposition sort of falls apart.

We know, scientifically speaking, that people dead for three days DON'T come back. We also know, scientifically speaking, that people DON'T turn into pillars of salt.

I'm asking you, objectively speaking, how you KNOW Chirst was the son of God, born of a virgin, died and resurrected for our sins, but in the same vien you'll dismiss Genesis, people turning to salt, and Satan messing with Job as pure story telling and allegory.

Personally, I don't find any of these accounts plausible, and in fact, find the Christ account the MOST ridiculous.

There are a ridiculous amount of fantastic stories in the Bible, and the logic you use does not help me in determining which are true and which are not.

Quote:
A fool is welcome to believe whatever he / she wants. And there's no shortage of people who have somehow been deluded into thinking that a belief in God entails "blind" faith and the belief that EVERY word in the Bible must be taken literally. 

You yourself say not every word in the Bible is literal. I'm simply asking you how you determine what is and is not to be taken as fact and allegory. You are not helping me in that regard.

Quote:
Perhaps the story of Job is true and that he actually was a living breathing man and that EVERYTHING that was described in the Book of Job is 100% true.

But I don't believe it.

I don't believe it either. Seriously, God and Satan placing bets on a single dude? Ridiculous.

But, even you should have to admit, God's son, being born or a virgin, crucified and resurrected, is also a pretty ridiculous story when you strip away preconcieved notions.

I'm asking you, how do you know that the Christ story is not as allegorical as the story of Job?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

There are pasaages in the Bible that are historical facts and deal with historical characters. And then there are other passages that are designed to make a point.

So how, exactly, do you make an objective distinction between allegory and historical tales?

Quote:
I don't believe that the story of Job, for example, deals with a real individual, for example, and that some kind of a "game"  or contest / wager took place between God and Satan.

Why not, exactly?

Why not believe that, yet believe your savior is the son of God and rose from the dead?

How do you distinguish fact from fiction in the Bible?

Quote:
So to answer your question, we simply evolved, which explains why we have different races. We didn't just evolve from two people.

I'm pleased you do not hold to literal interpretation and embrace science on this point, but it does raise other problems for you, as I've pointed out.

To fully answer your question would require a very long response. 

Suffice it to say that I'm able to make objective distinctions between what I bellieve to be allegory versus  (historical) fact by exercising my brain.

 I believe, for example, that the American government / military in the 19th century embarked on a well thought out campaign to eradicate and/or conquer the Sioux.

 There's enough (historical) evidence to make me comfortable with this belief. 

However, I don't believe that so and so Sioux chief actually met/ saw a particular Indian Agent or government official who really had a "forked tongue". But it's there in writing - he was quoted as saying it. And if it's in writing, then it must be true..?? And if he said it, he was a liar..?? Or insane..?? 

No - you and I both know EXACTLY what the Sioux chief meant when he referred to the white man "speaking with a forked tongue".

Well, in many ways, the Bible is much like the above example.

No, it isn't.

I too can understand metaphor when I read it, however when a book, like the Bible has SEVERAL instances of resurrection (many of which are traditionally accepted to be true by Christians) and divine intervention, your juxtaposition sort of falls apart.

We know, scientifically speaking, that people dead for three days DON'T come back. We also know, scientifically speaking, that people DON'T turn into pillars of salt.

I'm asking you, objectively speaking, how you KNOW Chirst was the son of God, born of a virgin, died and resurrected for our sins, but in the same vien you'll dismiss Genesis, people turning to salt, and Satan messing with Job as pure story telling and allegory.

Personally, I don't find any of these accounts plausible, and in fact, find the Christ account the MOST ridiculous.

There are a ridiculous amount of fantastic stories in the Bible, and the logic you use does not help me in determining which are true and which are not.

Quote:
A fool is welcome to believe whatever he / she wants. And there's no shortage of people who have somehow been deluded into thinking that a belief in God entails "blind" faith and the belief that EVERY word in the Bible must be taken literally. 

You yourself say not every word in the Bible is literal. I'm simply asking you how you determine what is and is not to be taken as fact and allegory. You are not helping me in that regard.

Quote:
Perhaps the story of Job is true and that he actually was a living breathing man and that EVERYTHING that was described in the Book of Job is 100% true.

But I don't believe it.

I don't believe it either. Seriously, God and Satan placing bets on a single dude? Ridiculous.

But, even you should have to admit, God's son, being born or a virgin, crucified and resurrected, is also a pretty ridiculous story when you strip away preconcieved notions.

I'm asking you, how do you know that the Christ story is not as allegorical as the story of Job?

 

I don't know with 100% rational and logical thought that the story of Christ's death and resurrection and virgin birth and a "bet" between satan and God is the absolute truth. 

No more than you can know with absolute certainty that Jesus Christ wasn't exactly who he said he was - the Son of God.

It comes down to the 'evidence" and what we believe, doesn't it..?? 

I really don't understand why this seems to be such a difficult concept for many atheists to understand.

Let me give you a better example. 

Twelve people heard the evidence and found OJ Simpson Not Guilty of murder.

I personally know two dozen people - enough for two juries - who would hear the EXACT same evidence and find him guilty.

Now if people hearing the evidence about something as rational, believable and logical as an ordinary man commiting or not commiting a murder in the here and now can't fully agree based on the exact same evidence, then how could we possiblly prove or disprove something as extraordinary as the resurrection 2,000 years ago.   But you want me to expalin how my mind and thought process works in making the distinction.

 

Sorry - I don't have 5 years to draft a full response to you.

 

 


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan

Broncosfan wrote:

I don't know with 100% rational and logical thought that the story of Christ's death and resurrection and virgin birth and a "bet" between satan and God is the absolute truth. 

So why do you believe it?

Quote:
No more than you can know with absolute certainty that Jesus Christ wasn't exactly who he said he was - the Son of God.

No more than you can say David Koresh wasn't Jesus come back to earth as his followers believed then, I suppose.

Quote:
It comes down to the 'evidence" and what we believe, doesn't it..?? 
It should come down to evidence (notice lack of scare quotes). What evidence have you got?

Quote:
I really don't understand why this seems to be such a difficult concept for many atheists to understand.

I really don't understand how you cannot see why this sort of thing bothers us so much. You cannot even clearly explain to me how you distinguish fact from fiction in your own holy book, and I'm the one with the problem?

Shouldn't this be a question that is easy to answer? I fail to see how it is an unreasonable, unfair, or even difficult querie.

I don't want you to give me another lame analogy, I want you to honestly answer an honest question. Is that really too much to ask?

I'm not trying to trap you or stomp on you or berrate you here. I simply want to know how YOU do it. There's no right or wrong answer. I'm not going to attack you or make fun of you. I simply want you to be blunt and honest with me.

How do you distinguish fact from fictin in your holy book?

Quote:
Let me give you a better example. 

I'd preffer a simple and honest straight answer. I'm not interested in unrealted analogies that dance around the question.

Quote:
But you want me to expalin how my mind and thought process works in making the distinction.

Sorry - I don't have 5 years to draft a full response to you.

It shouldn't take five years - it shouldn't take but 5 minutes. I can tell you what I find accurate, embellished and completely ficticious in say "TORA, TORA, TORA" in a few paragraphs.

Why can't, or won't, you do the same in regards to the Bible?

I don't think I've ask an unreasonable or unfair question here. It shouldn't be that difficult to answer honestly and clearly. I'm not going to make fun of you or ridicule you (to do such would be to cast aspersion on myself (I'm an apostate), my family and friends), I simply want you to be honest with me and yourself here.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Yellow, your comment was

Yellow, your comment was clever and sarcastic. I would have said nothing had someone posted what I said and actually believed it.


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I dont

simple theist wrote:
I dont think any serious person thinks Usher's earlier dates are correct.

 

I don't think any serious person believes the Earth is just over 6,000 years old either.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

bump


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote: This

Master Jedi Dan wrote:
This is just another question thrown out there for the theists, but how did races form? Like Anglo-Saxon, African, Asian, South American, etc., from two people (Adam and Eve)? I mean, if Adam and Eve were of the same race (and the Bible says nothing against this), how did all the different races form?

 

Alright, Ive read every post on here. This is getting absurd, and every arguement in here should be in a different thread.

I just think it would be great if just one

(1)

Thiest of any denomination

ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.

I would love to here it.

this thread should have died after the original question was posed. there is no religious explanation.

thank you,

High Pope


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

I don't know with 100% rational and logical thought that the story of Christ's death and resurrection and virgin birth and a "bet" between satan and God is the absolute truth. 

So why do you believe it?

Quote:
No more than you can know with absolute certainty that Jesus Christ wasn't exactly who he said he was - the Son of God.

No more than you can say David Koresh wasn't Jesus come back to earth as his followers believed then, I suppose.

Quote:
It comes down to the 'evidence" and what we believe, doesn't it..?? 
It should come down to evidence (notice lack of scare quotes). What evidence have you got?

Quote:
I really don't understand why this seems to be such a difficult concept for many atheists to understand.

I really don't understand how you cannot see why this sort of thing bothers us so much. You cannot even clearly explain to me how you distinguish fact from fiction in your own holy book, and I'm the one with the problem?

Shouldn't this be a question that is easy to answer? I fail to see how it is an unreasonable, unfair, or even difficult querie.

I don't want you to give me another lame analogy, I want you to honestly answer an honest question. Is that really too much to ask?

I'm not trying to trap you or stomp on you or berrate you here. I simply want to know how YOU do it. There's no right or wrong answer. I'm not going to attack you or make fun of you. I simply want you to be blunt and honest with me.

How do you distinguish fact from fictin in your holy book?

Quote:
Let me give you a better example. 

I'd preffer a simple and honest straight answer. I'm not interested in unrealted analogies that dance around the question.

Quote:
But you want me to expalin how my mind and thought process works in making the distinction.

Sorry - I don't have 5 years to draft a full response to you.

It shouldn't take five years - it shouldn't take but 5 minutes. I can tell you what I find accurate, embellished and completely ficticious in say "TORA, TORA, TORA" in a few paragraphs.

Why can't, or won't, you do the same in regards to the Bible?

I don't think I've ask an unreasonable or unfair question here. It shouldn't be that difficult to answer honestly and clearly. I'm not going to make fun of you or ridicule you (to do such would be to cast aspersion on myself (I'm an apostate), my family and friends), I simply want you to be honest with me and yourself here.

You're really not reading and /or understanding my posts are you or the point I'm trying to make, are you..?? 

 I assure you that I'm not trying to be "cute" or evasive or play games with you.

Nor am I afraid that you're going to stomp me or berate me (as if a nameless, faceless, complete anonymous person could have that kind of impact on my life - you're simply characters on a screen - the same as what I am).

How does ANYBODY distinguish fact from fiction - how do you distinguish what's real  and what's not real in Tora Tora Tora, for example. 

I've told you once and I'm going to tell you again - you use your head and you mae a decision based on your intellect, your life experiences, your background and countless other factors that go into the thought process.

And then you come to a decision about whether you believe it or not. 

You say the OJ Simpson analogy was lame. No - it wasn't lame at all -  I was simply making the point that two different groups of 12 people could hear the EXACT same evidence and the EXACT same arguments and come up with two different verdicts.

Now why is that..?? 

It's really very simple - we don't all think alike - we all have different opinions about different issues (again, why is this such a difficult concept for you to get your head around..???)

Do I believe that David Koresh was not Jesus come back to earth ..? 

Yes - I believe that he was nothing more than a pathetic loser who had the ability to con other losers who were looking for a "daddy" figure into thinking he was the "messiah".

Do I know with absolute certainty that he was NOT Jesus come back to earth - No I don't.

Do I believe that the Romans were in power in the Holy Land during the life of Christ - yes I believe that.

Do I know it - yes I know it based on enough credible historical evidence. 

 Do I know and believe that the Romans crucified people for various crimes.

 Yes - I know and believe it.

 Do I believe that Jesus Christ was a living, breathing person..?

Yes - I believe it.

Do I know that Christ was a living, breathing person with absolute certainty..?

No I don't (CNN wasn't around in those days..!!) 

Do I believe that Christ was crucified under Pilate's order.?

Yes- I believe it.

 Do I know it with absolute certainty - No I don't (again CNN wasn't around in those days with film at 11:00)

Do I believe that something extraordinary happened after his death that has elevated this man to perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT historical figure to ever walk the planet.

Yes - I believe it.

 Do I know that something happened with absolute certainty..??

No - I don't (again CNN wasn't around in those days).

Would a man risiing from the dead be considered an extraordinary event - would that qualify as something extraordinary..?

 Yes - I believe it would.  

Is it possible that people alive during the life of Christ might find it extraordinary..?? 

Yes - I believe they would?

Do I know that they would find it extraordinary..??

 No - I have no idea what people in 30AD found extraordinary..!

Do I believe that there must have been countless individuals who came forward claiming to be the Messiah - the "chosen one" whose coming was foretold by the prophets for years and years and years..??

 Yes - I believe this to be a fact..!!

 I believe there must have been countless David koresh's in those days claiming to be divine. And just like David Koresh, they couldn't live up to their own press clippings and they just faded away - as did their followers.

 Do I know that there were countless other David Koresh's back then - No I don't.

So what was different about this fellow Jesus - why is this fellow so important historically that time / history as we know it is divided into two segments - before his birth and after his birth.?

With all of our knowledge in 2007  - with all of the archealogical (sp??) discoveries - with  all of our science - why have we not been able to conclusively debunk this absurd notion that he arose from the dead, for example. 

If it's so damn ludicrous - so absurd - so beyond beleif - it shoudl be the easist thing in the world to debunk..??

Anyways, does  the above give you a general idea of how a person's thought process works and how they come to a belief based on that thought process...?? Or do you need other example..???

I gave you honest answers / responses in my earlier posts.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, that doesn't somehow make the response dishonest - it simply means that you dont' understand what I'm saying.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote: This

Master Jedi Dan wrote:
This is just another question thrown out there for the theists, but how did races form? Like Anglo-Saxon, African, Asian, South American, etc., from two people (Adam and Eve)? I mean, if Adam and Eve were of the same race (and the Bible says nothing against this), how did all the different races form?

OK I'd like to chip in my thoughts to the original post on this thread... 

As to what the bible states, the only verse that closely comes to the topic of races would be the following:

 Genesis 10:5 (NIV) From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.

 My question would actually be are there actually races?  From my Christian belief and from the bible, there aren't.  Skin color does not make us different biologically so can there actually be any actual point to "race"?  There is only one race and that's the human race.

Webster's definition as best I can tell defines it as following:a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock

 And if we actually started from the "same stock", are there races to begin with or does society simply choose to label (from a superficial point of view) because it's more comfortable to do so?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Debauchrist
Debauchrist's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Back to the original

Back to the original question, I think the answer is obvious:

God's parents grounded him for a week and left him with only a pot of dust, a spare rib, and a can of spray paint. The results you're seeing is God's project he presented at a science fair regarding abiogenesis. As you can see, he got a D.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan

Broncosfan wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

I don't know with 100% rational and logical thought that the story of Christ's death and resurrection and virgin birth and a "bet" between satan and God is the absolute truth. 

So why do you believe it?

Quote:
No more than you can know with absolute certainty that Jesus Christ wasn't exactly who he said he was - the Son of God.

No more than you can say David Koresh wasn't Jesus come back to earth as his followers believed then, I suppose.

Quote:
It comes down to the 'evidence" and what we believe, doesn't it..?? 
It should come down to evidence (notice lack of scare quotes). What evidence have you got?

Quote:
I really don't understand why this seems to be such a difficult concept for many atheists to understand.

I really don't understand how you cannot see why this sort of thing bothers us so much. You cannot even clearly explain to me how you distinguish fact from fiction in your own holy book, and I'm the one with the problem?

Shouldn't this be a question that is easy to answer? I fail to see how it is an unreasonable, unfair, or even difficult querie.

I don't want you to give me another lame analogy, I want you to honestly answer an honest question. Is that really too much to ask?

I'm not trying to trap you or stomp on you or berrate you here. I simply want to know how YOU do it. There's no right or wrong answer. I'm not going to attack you or make fun of you. I simply want you to be blunt and honest with me.

How do you distinguish fact from fictin in your holy book?

Quote:
Let me give you a better example. 

I'd preffer a simple and honest straight answer. I'm not interested in unrealted analogies that dance around the question.

Quote:
But you want me to expalin how my mind and thought process works in making the distinction.

Sorry - I don't have 5 years to draft a full response to you.

It shouldn't take five years - it shouldn't take but 5 minutes. I can tell you what I find accurate, embellished and completely ficticious in say "TORA, TORA, TORA" in a few paragraphs.

Why can't, or won't, you do the same in regards to the Bible?

I don't think I've ask an unreasonable or unfair question here. It shouldn't be that difficult to answer honestly and clearly. I'm not going to make fun of you or ridicule you (to do such would be to cast aspersion on myself (I'm an apostate), my family and friends), I simply want you to be honest with me and yourself here.

You're really not reading and /or understanding my posts are you or the point I'm trying to make, are you..?? 

Certainly I am, I'm making every effort.

 

Quote:
I assure you that I'm not trying to be "cute" or evasive or play games with you.

Well, you admitted yourself that your last response could come off as evasive - I simply told you that it did, and then I told you why.

Quote:
Nor am I afraid that you're going to stomp me or berate me (as if a nameless, faceless, complete anonymous person could have that kind of impact on my life - you're simply characters on a screen - the same as what I am).

Good, so you should have no problem being honest about your faith with me, even if it puts you into a dillemma - as I believe it has.

Quote:
How does ANYBODY distinguish fact from fiction - how do you distinguish what's real  and what's not real in Tora Tora Tora, for example.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you simply, how you distinguish the metaphor and exaggeration and fiction from the fact in your holy book. I can distiguish the accuracy of a movie like Tora by comparing film, radar reading, bomb damage, personal diaries, CONFIRMED eyewitness accounts, etc to the film.  

Quote:
I've told you once and I'm going to tell you again - you use your head and you mae a decision based on your intellect, your life experiences, your background and countless other factors that go into the thought process.

So walk me through it. How, exactly, do you know that the Ark story is a work of fiction and Jesus rising from the dead is not? Are not both stories equally miraculous and far fetched? Do not both go against what is commonly held to be true on scientific grounds? How do YOU make the distinction?

Is it as simple as the Ark story is MORE crazy than the Jesus story? Is it as simple as one story is cetral to your faith and the other is not? What? I simply want you to let me inside your thought process.

Quote:
And then you come to a decision about whether you believe it or not. 

Not really. I can read the story of how the Incredible Hulk became the Incredible Hulk or how Spiderman came to have his powers and when I juxtapose them against the story of Jesus, I honestly don't see any reason to believe one more than the others. All of them are antithetical to how the world around us works. I can buy that a man named Jesus walked the earth, I cannot buy that he was essentially a super-hero.

Quote:
You say the OJ Simpson analogy was lame. No - it wasn't lame at all -  I was simply making the point that two different groups of 12 people could hear the EXACT same evidence and the EXACT same arguments and come up with two different verdicts.

But if their arguments were, say, about a man leaping a 50 story building, would it matter what any of them THOUGHT they saw, SAID they saw, or actually believed? That was my point.

You believe in what even you have to admit is a FANTASITIC story. I want to know why, and I want to know why you believe THAT fantastic story and dismiss other equally fantastic stories in the same book.

Quote:
Now why is that..?? 

It's really very simple - we don't all think alike - we all have different opinions about different issues (again, why is this such a difficult concept for you to get your head around..???)

That is not hard to get my head around. What is hard to get my head around is you being rationally and rightly discerning and skeptical about some parts of the Bible and not others without giving proper justification for such distinctions. It is not an OPINION that people generally don't come back from the dead. It's an idea that flies in the face of what we understand about the natual world, just as the idea of say a global flood flies in the face of what we now about geology. So again, I reiterate my question - how do you distinguish fact from fiction in the Bible? What allows you to dismiss many stories as rightly implausible, yet pick certain ones to base your faith around? How do you make the distinction?

Quote:
Do I believe that David Koresh was not Jesus come back to earth ..? 

Yes - I believe that he was nothing more than a pathetic loser who had the ability to con other losers who were looking for a "daddy" figure into thinking he was the "messiah".

And I may say similar things about your saviour.

Quote:
Do I know with absolute certainty that he was NOT Jesus come back to earth - No I don't.

But YOU DO doubt it, and I want to know WHY you do. Why doubt Koresh and believe Jesus? Why doubt God made the earth in 6 days, yet believe your saviour died and came back from the dead? Talk me through your thought process.

Quote:
Do I believe that the Romans were in power in the Holy Land during the life of Christ - yes I believe that.

Do I know it - yes I know it based on enough credible historical evidence.

Now you are making some sense. We have Roman records of crucifictions and Christian persecution (no mention of Jesus though). But I'm more talking about the supernatural aspects here, if you've noticed. 

 

Quote:
Do I know and believe that the Romans crucified people for various crimes.

 Yes - I know and believe it.

So do I, they did. It's a matter of historical record. To deny that would be akin to denying the Holocaust. What I have a problem with is beliving that in one particular instance a special man came back from said execution.

 

Quote:
Do I believe that Jesus Christ was a living, breathing person..?

Yes - I believe it.

Depends on what you claim for said man, but it is not outside the realm of possibility that there was a man named Yeshua who preached in that area around that time.

Quote:
Do I know that Christ was a living, breathing person with absolute certainty..?

No I don't (CNN wasn't around in those days..!!) 

Ok, NOW we're getting somewhere. You are not certain yet you DO believe. I can understand that if you're willing to talk me through it and tell me why you believe as you do.

Quote:
Do I believe that Christ was crucified under Pilate's order.?

Yes- I believe it.

 Do I know it with absolute certainty - No I don't (again CNN wasn't around in those days with film at 11:00)

Even that, I can understand, if you can walk me through your reasoning.

Quote:
Do I believe that something extraordinary happened after his death that has elevated this man to perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT historical figure to ever walk the planet.

Yes - I believe it.

 Do I know that something happened with absolute certainty..??

No - I don't (again CNN wasn't around in those days).

And here is where I lose you. I don't need CNN there to tell me that a dead man coming back to life is a physical impossibility.

Yet you believe in THAT and dismiss other equally strange things in the Bible as fiction. There MUST be a way in which you make the distinction. You believe in this incredible story, but not the others, why? I'm really just trying to understand here. To me, it's sort of like you're saying you don't believe in planet Krypton, but you do belive in Superman. I don't understand how you make such discernments.

Quote:
Would a man risiing from the dead be considered an extraordinary event - would that qualify as something extraordinary..?

 Yes - I believe it would.  

Is it possible that people alive during the life of Christ might find it extraordinary..?? 

Yes - I believe they would?

Do I know that they would find it extraordinary..??

 No - I have no idea what people in 30AD found extraordinary..!

I'm pretty sure the dead coming back to life would ALWAYS be noteworthy. You sort of miss the point here.

Quote:
Do I believe that there must have been countless individuals who came forward claiming to be the Messiah - the "chosen one" whose coming was foretold by the prophets for years and years and years..??

 Yes - I believe this to be a fact..!!

But do you believe that is enough to establish that a man came back to life?

Say, 5,000 people testified in court next week that they say a man come back from the dead or a man leap a 50 story building. What would you say about that? Should we believe such a thing happened based on this testimony? Why or why not?

 

Quote:
I believe there must have been countless David koresh's in those days claiming to be divine. And just like David Koresh, they couldn't live up to their own press clippings and they just faded away - as did their followers.

You are quite right about that. There were dozens, if not hundreds of such messiahs in those days. Perhaps one just got better press than the others?

 

Quote:
Do I know that there were countless other David Koresh's back then - No I don't.

So what was different about this fellow Jesus - why is this fellow so important historically that time / history as we know it is divided into two segments - before his birth and after his birth.?

 As far as I can tell, the only thing important about him is that his story managed to survive and outlive the others.

Quote:
With all of our knowledge in 2007  - with all of the archealogical (sp??) discoveries - with  all of our science - why have we not been able to conclusively debunk this absurd notion that he arose from the dead, for example. 

We effectively have. NOBODY HAS EVER COME BACK FROM THE DEAD. RESURRECTION IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. IT VIOLATES MAJOR LAWS OF SCIENCE (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics for example). Dead people STAY dead.

Quote:
If it's so damn ludicrous - so absurd - so beyond beleif - it shoudl be the easist thing in the world to debunk..??

This is like asking why science hasn't debunked the myth about George Washington throwing a coin across the Potomac of John Henry beating a steam drill through a mountain. It is simply a physical impossibility for a human to throw a coin that far or chop that much rock that fast. We need not delve any furthur. Dead people stay dead.

You believe in a miraculous, supernatural story. Yet you dismiss equally miraculous and supernautal stories in the same text - why? What makes you believe one and dismiss the others?

It's a very simple and straightforward question that you've danced around since I asked it.

Quote:
Anyways, does  the above give you a general idea of how a person's thought process works and how they come to a belief based on that thought process...?? Or do you need other example..???

No, you've not answered what I was asking. I want to know how you dismiss some supernatural stories in the Bible, yet accept others. I want to know how you make the distinction, what your thought process is, and what, if any, evidence you use.

Don't give me examples, just answer the question. I don't see why it is a difficult question to answer, unless you don't have any idea why you make such discernments.

Quote:
I gave you honest answers / responses in my earlier posts.

You may have, but they did not answer the rather straightforward queirie posed. I'm not calling you dishonest or evasive, personally, I don't think you've really ever thought this out. I've been where you are now.

Quote:
If you don't understand what I'm saying, that doesn't somehow make the response dishonest - it simply means that you dont' understand what I'm saying.

I don't think you are dishonest, and I do think I understand what you've said - but what you've said does not answer what I asked you, and I think, deep down, you know that.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

I don't know with 100% rational and logical thought that the story of Christ's death and resurrection and virgin birth and a "bet" between satan and God is the absolute truth. 

So why do you believe it?

Quote:
No more than you can know with absolute certainty that Jesus Christ wasn't exactly who he said he was - the Son of God.

No more than you can say David Koresh wasn't Jesus come back to earth as his followers believed then, I suppose.

Quote:
It comes down to the 'evidence" and what we believe, doesn't it..?? 
It should come down to evidence (notice lack of scare quotes). What evidence have you got?

Quote:
I really don't understand why this seems to be such a difficult concept for many atheists to understand.

I really don't understand how you cannot see why this sort of thing bothers us so much. You cannot even clearly explain to me how you distinguish fact from fiction in your own holy book, and I'm the one with the problem?

Shouldn't this be a question that is easy to answer? I fail to see how it is an unreasonable, unfair, or even difficult querie.

I don't want you to give me another lame analogy, I want you to honestly answer an honest question. Is that really too much to ask?

I'm not trying to trap you or stomp on you or berrate you here. I simply want to know how YOU do it. There's no right or wrong answer. I'm not going to attack you or make fun of you. I simply want you to be blunt and honest with me.

How do you distinguish fact from fictin in your holy book?

Quote:
Let me give you a better example. 

I'd preffer a simple and honest straight answer. I'm not interested in unrealted analogies that dance around the question.

Quote:
But you want me to expalin how my mind and thought process works in making the distinction.

Sorry - I don't have 5 years to draft a full response to you.

It shouldn't take five years - it shouldn't take but 5 minutes. I can tell you what I find accurate, embellished and completely ficticious in say "TORA, TORA, TORA" in a few paragraphs.

Why can't, or won't, you do the same in regards to the Bible?

I don't think I've ask an unreasonable or unfair question here. It shouldn't be that difficult to answer honestly and clearly. I'm not going to make fun of you or ridicule you (to do such would be to cast aspersion on myself (I'm an apostate), my family and friends), I simply want you to be honest with me and yourself here.

You're really not reading and /or understanding my posts are you or the point I'm trying to make, are you..?? 

Certainly I am, I'm making every effort.

 

Quote:
I assure you that I'm not trying to be "cute" or evasive or play games with you.

Well, you admitted yourself that your last response could come off as evasive - I simply told you that it did, and then I told you why.

Quote:
Nor am I afraid that you're going to stomp me or berate me (as if a nameless, faceless, complete anonymous person could have that kind of impact on my life - you're simply characters on a screen - the same as what I am).

Good, so you should have no problem being honest about your faith with me, even if it puts you into a dillemma - as I believe it has.

Quote:
How does ANYBODY distinguish fact from fiction - how do you distinguish what's real  and what's not real in Tora Tora Tora, for example.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you simply, how you distinguish the metaphor and exaggeration and fiction from the fact in your holy book. I can distiguish the accuracy of a movie like Tora by comparing film, radar reading, bomb damage, personal diaries, CONFIRMED eyewitness accounts, etc to the film.  

Quote:
I've told you once and I'm going to tell you again - you use your head and you mae a decision based on your intellect, your life experiences, your background and countless other factors that go into the thought process.

So walk me through it. How, exactly, do you know that the Ark story is a work of fiction and Jesus rising from the dead is not? Are not both stories equally miraculous and far fetched? Do not both go against what is commonly held to be true on scientific grounds? How do YOU make the distinction?

Is it as simple as the Ark story is MORE crazy than the Jesus story? Is it as simple as one story is cetral to your faith and the other is not? What? I simply want you to let me inside your thought process.

Quote:
And then you come to a decision about whether you believe it or not. 

Not really. I can read the story of how the Incredible Hulk became the Incredible Hulk or how Spiderman came to have his powers and when I juxtapose them against the story of Jesus, I honestly don't see any reason to believe one more than the others. All of them are antithetical to how the world around us works. I can buy that a man named Jesus walked the earth, I cannot buy that he was essentially a super-hero.

Quote:
You say the OJ Simpson analogy was lame. No - it wasn't lame at all -  I was simply making the point that two different groups of 12 people could hear the EXACT same evidence and the EXACT same arguments and come up with two different verdicts.

But if their arguments were, say, about a man leaping a 50 story building, would it matter what any of them THOUGHT they saw, SAID they saw, or actually believed? That was my point.

You believe in what even you have to admit is a FANTASITIC story. I want to know why, and I want to know why you believe THAT fantastic story and dismiss other equally fantastic stories in the same book.

Quote:
Now why is that..?? 

It's really very simple - we don't all think alike - we all have different opinions about different issues (again, why is this such a difficult concept for you to get your head around..???)

That is not hard to get my head around. What is hard to get my head around is you being rationally and rightly discerning and skeptical about some parts of the Bible and not others without giving proper justification for such distinctions. It is not an OPINION that people generally don't come back from the dead. It's an idea that flies in the face of what we understand about the natual world, just as the idea of say a global flood flies in the face of what we now about geology. So again, I reiterate my question - how do you distinguish fact from fiction in the Bible? What allows you to dismiss many stories as rightly implausible, yet pick certain ones to base your faith around? How do you make the distinction?

Quote:
Do I believe that David Koresh was not Jesus come back to earth ..? 

Yes - I believe that he was nothing more than a pathetic loser who had the ability to con other losers who were looking for a "daddy" figure into thinking he was the "messiah".

And I may say similar things about your saviour.

Quote:
Do I know with absolute certainty that he was NOT Jesus come back to earth - No I don't.

But YOU DO doubt it, and I want to know WHY you do. Why doubt Koresh and believe Jesus? Why doubt God made the earth in 6 days, yet believe your saviour died and came back from the dead? Talk me through your thought process.

Quote:
Do I believe that the Romans were in power in the Holy Land during the life of Christ - yes I believe that.

Do I know it - yes I know it based on enough credible historical evidence.

Now you are making some sense. We have Roman records of crucifictions and Christian persecution (no mention of Jesus though). But I'm more talking about the supernatural aspects here, if you've noticed. 

 

Quote:
Do I know and believe that the Romans crucified people for various crimes.

 Yes - I know and believe it.

So do I, they did. It's a matter of historical record. To deny that would be akin to denying the Holocaust. What I have a problem with is beliving that in one particular instance a special man came back from said execution.

 

Quote:
Do I believe that Jesus Christ was a living, breathing person..?

Yes - I believe it.

Depends on what you claim for said man, but it is not outside the realm of possibility that there was a man named Yeshua who preached in that area around that time.

Quote:
Do I know that Christ was a living, breathing person with absolute certainty..?

No I don't (CNN wasn't around in those days..!!) 

Ok, NOW we're getting somewhere. You are not certain yet you DO believe. I can understand that if you're willing to talk me through it and tell me why you believe as you do.

Quote:
Do I believe that Christ was crucified under Pilate's order.?

Yes- I believe it.

 Do I know it with absolute certainty - No I don't (again CNN wasn't around in those days with film at 11:00)

Even that, I can understand, if you can walk me through your reasoning.

Quote:
Do I believe that something extraordinary happened after his death that has elevated this man to perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT historical figure to ever walk the planet.

Yes - I believe it.

 Do I know that something happened with absolute certainty..??

No - I don't (again CNN wasn't around in those days).

And here is where I lose you. I don't need CNN there to tell me that a dead man coming back to life is a physical impossibility.

Yet you believe in THAT and dismiss other equally strange things in the Bible as fiction. There MUST be a way in which you make the distinction. You believe in this incredible story, but not the others, why? I'm really just trying to understand here. To me, it's sort of like you're saying you don't believe in planet Krypton, but you do belive in Superman. I don't understand how you make such discernments.

Quote:
Would a man risiing from the dead be considered an extraordinary event - would that qualify as something extraordinary..?

 Yes - I believe it would.  

Is it possible that people alive during the life of Christ might find it extraordinary..?? 

Yes - I believe they would?

Do I know that they would find it extraordinary..??

 No - I have no idea what people in 30AD found extraordinary..!

I'm pretty sure the dead coming back to life would ALWAYS be noteworthy. You sort of miss the point here.

Quote:
Do I believe that there must have been countless individuals who came forward claiming to be the Messiah - the "chosen one" whose coming was foretold by the prophets for years and years and years..??

 Yes - I believe this to be a fact..!!

But do you believe that is enough to establish that a man came back to life?

Say, 5,000 people testified in court next week that they say a man come back from the dead or a man leap a 50 story building. What would you say about that? Should we believe such a thing happened based on this testimony? Why or why not?

 

Quote:
I believe there must have been countless David koresh's in those days claiming to be divine. And just like David Koresh, they couldn't live up to their own press clippings and they just faded away - as did their followers.

You are quite right about that. There were dozens, if not hundreds of such messiahs in those days. Perhaps one just got better press than the others?

 

Quote:
Do I know that there were countless other David Koresh's back then - No I don't.

So what was different about this fellow Jesus - why is this fellow so important historically that time / history as we know it is divided into two segments - before his birth and after his birth.?

 As far as I can tell, the only thing important about him is that his story managed to survive and outlive the others.

Quote:
With all of our knowledge in 2007  - with all of the archealogical (sp??) discoveries - with  all of our science - why have we not been able to conclusively debunk this absurd notion that he arose from the dead, for example. 

We effectively have. NOBODY HAS EVER COME BACK FROM THE DEAD. RESURRECTION IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. IT VIOLATES MAJOR LAWS OF SCIENCE (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics for example). Dead people STAY dead.

Quote:
If it's so damn ludicrous - so absurd - so beyond beleif - it shoudl be the easist thing in the world to debunk..??

This is like asking why science hasn't debunked the myth about George Washington throwing a coin across the Potomac of John Henry beating a steam drill through a mountain. It is simply a physical impossibility for a human to throw a coin that far or chop that much rock that fast. We need not delve any furthur. Dead people stay dead.

You believe in a miraculous, supernatural story. Yet you dismiss equally miraculous and supernautal stories in the same text - why? What makes you believe one and dismiss the others?

It's a very simple and straightforward question that you've danced around since I asked it.

Quote:
Anyways, does  the above give you a general idea of how a person's thought process works and how they come to a belief based on that thought process...?? Or do you need other example..???

No, you've not answered what I was asking. I want to know how you dismiss some supernatural stories in the Bible, yet accept others. I want to know how you make the distinction, what your thought process is, and what, if any, evidence you use.

Don't give me examples, just answer the question. I don't see why it is a difficult question to answer, unless you don't have any idea why you make such discernments.

Quote:
I gave you honest answers / responses in my earlier posts.

You may have, but they did not answer the rather straightforward queirie posed. I'm not calling you dishonest or evasive, personally, I don't think you've really ever thought this out. I've been where you are now.

Quote:
If you don't understand what I'm saying, that doesn't somehow make the response dishonest - it simply means that you dont' understand what I'm saying.

I don't think you are dishonest, and I do think I understand what you've said - but what you've said does not answer what I asked you, and I think, deep down, you know that.

Unbelievable..!! 

F**king unbelievable..!! 

You asked me HOW I came to the conclusion that the resurrection of Christ, for example, is believable / credible to me - how my thought process works.

So I provide you with a very detailed response - I lay out in a very clear an simple format the types of questions I ask myself that will ultimately determine whether something is possible / credible to me or not - and you respond with " Yeah - but how do you distinquish between the Ark story and Jesus rising from the dead - why do you believe one, for example, and not the other".

F**king unbelievable. 

And if I provided you with a step-by-step analysis of how I came to believe or disbelieve the Ark story, you'd come back with something like "yeah - but how do you distinguish between the ark story and the Tower of Babel".

Let's just say that you don't get it - you never will and leave it at that.

Unbelievable..!!!!