The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).
Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.
The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Moderator: Moderators
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 864 times
- Been thanked: 1266 times
The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #1___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #601The debilitating effects of taking Genesis literally have been confirmed within just this thread alone.
Witness a certain user herein, who upon challenge to his biblical claims has suddenly, perhaps supernaturally, turned into a clam. Instead of honor and integrity, we get silence and ignoring. Ain't "ignoring" the root of "ignorance" - I don't know, I ain't got much schooling.
What's most problematic with such, is that if - if - the Bible truly gives one honor and integrity, then in debate the theist should be found to display such honor and integrity. But that ain't what we get, is it?
Nope. We get us one more theist who thinks debate merely requires making claims and avoiding responsibility for those claims. Either too ignorant of the term, or too dismissive of the truth. Neither of which bodes well for biblical 'knowledge'.
A sad display of how taking goofy, illogical claims as literal truth is a poor means of acquiring knowledge.
All I learn from such is that some theists who promote Truth(tm) either don't recognize it, or will take the hit to their reputation in order to avoid having to come to grips with the little 't' truth.
The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.
Witness a certain user herein, who upon challenge to his biblical claims has suddenly, perhaps supernaturally, turned into a clam. Instead of honor and integrity, we get silence and ignoring. Ain't "ignoring" the root of "ignorance" - I don't know, I ain't got much schooling.
What's most problematic with such, is that if - if - the Bible truly gives one honor and integrity, then in debate the theist should be found to display such honor and integrity. But that ain't what we get, is it?
Nope. We get us one more theist who thinks debate merely requires making claims and avoiding responsibility for those claims. Either too ignorant of the term, or too dismissive of the truth. Neither of which bodes well for biblical 'knowledge'.
A sad display of how taking goofy, illogical claims as literal truth is a poor means of acquiring knowledge.
All I learn from such is that some theists who promote Truth(tm) either don't recognize it, or will take the hit to their reputation in order to avoid having to come to grips with the little 't' truth.
The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #602[Replying to dad1 in post #600]
So it isn't heaven where birds fly as you claimed. They fly in our atmosphere which scatters light, has pressure differentials which cause air to move from one location to another (wind), etc. and it has nothing to do with any place called heaven. That is the point.Right, and...so?
Because you keep insisting it actually happened, that there are "windows to heaven", and wormhole-like structures that can transport water from beyond the observable universe, and other similar examples of utter nonsense. These old bible stories cannot be taken literally, because they violate known natural phenomena and physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.You once again bring up the flood. Why??
There's no point wasting scientific efforts on trying to disprove things that have never been shown to exist, and aren't in the least bit reasonable to expect to exist. Science deals with the real world ... not tall tales from holy books.Oh, and do stop pretending you or anyone else has any science to deal with the fountains of the deep, or windows of heaven etc.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #603Well that part of the sky is included. Ask any child where a bird flies.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 3:51 pm
So it isn't heaven where birds fly as you claimed. They fly in our atmosphere which scatters light, has pressure differentials which cause air to move from one location to another (wind), etc. and it has nothing to do with any place called heaven. That is the point.
You brought it up. Why would I not then correct wrong facts and claims about it?Because you keep insisting it actually happened,
that there are "windows to heaven", and wormhole-like structures that can transport water from beyond the observable universe, and other similar examples of utter nonsense.
Don't misrepresent what I said. I never said there are window like structures. I pointed out how long long ago, the bible says there were windows of heaven that opened. You are in no position to call that false. You have no science on it.
False. God is not supposed to be bound by laws. Neither is the past that was in a nature that is unknown.These old bible stories cannot be taken literally, because they violate known natural phenomena and physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.
They are recorded to have existed and you have no evidence that they did or did not. Period.There's no point wasting scientific efforts on trying to disprove things that have never been shown to exist
Try to get your tenses right. Windows to heaven, and the flood do not exist today. They existed long ago. Believe it or not., and aren't in the least bit reasonable to expect to exist.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #604You're not wrong, but adults too.
When one's god punishes you and all your progeny for the pursuit of knowledge, well ain't a shame.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #6053rd challengeJoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 4:00 am2nd challengeJoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:22 pmI use the terminology of medical professionals, take your problem up with them.dad1 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:52 pmYou do not get to make the rules! Babies that are unborn are just little people. They used to say a woman was 'great with child' not great with fetus'! You want to call the victims of murder another name so that it seems less evil.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 6:34 pm A fetus is not a child. Your terminology is as antiquated as your thinking.
Where abortion is legal, "murder" is incorrect terminology. Take any problem you have with that to legal professionals.dad1 wrote:And I advocate that the innocent little people should be protected from murderers.JK wrote: I don't advocate for killing, but advocate for a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
I didn't know you were gonna tack on more stuff, so let me correct myself...dad1 wrote:Me too. But if she is carrying a machine gun and had uttered threats against a guy on the other side of that street, I am for the police stopping her.JK wrote: I'm for a woman's right to decide for herself if she wants to cross the street.
I'm for a woman's right to cross the street, unless she's doing it in order to shoot someone.
Is that the judgement of a god you can't show exists? Or the judgement of religious busybodies, and boy howdy, we know they exist?dad1 wrote: Then those locales have no vote in the judgment coming.
I never said otherwise.dad1 wrote:People do not need to be a woman to have rights actually.JK wrote: If he's the one that's pregnant.
I challenge you to show you speak truth in this matter.dad1 wrote:He told us in Scripture and He Himself while here confirmed that is true. His words are no mystery. No one can show God does not exist. The people who know Him know He exists.JK wrote: I'm unaware of anyone who can show God even exists, much less that they know his opinion.
First challenge.
I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.dad1 wrote:JK wrote: My position is to stand with a woman's right to control her body.
It is the child's body we are talking about. The woman who is pregnant also has a responsibility to care for the other body God sent in to her womb.
First challenge.
Let me update my answer then...Manson may have consented to wiping out some people. That did not give him the right to do so.
I'm for a woman's right to control her body unless Manson comes along and tells her to kill Sharon Tate.
I challenge you to show God sends babies.dad1 wrote:Knowing God sends babies, and that anyone that hurts the little people will have to face Him for the crime, I have every right and duty to tell the truth on the issue.JK wrote: What's your obsession with trying to make a woman's medical decisions for her?
First challenge.
The liar lies, and the preacher preaches
The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.
My goal in repeating these challenges is less about the claims, which we know have no truth to em, but about the lack of honor from our theist claimant.
If you can't trust a theist to tell the truth, can you trust anything they say?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #606[Replying to dad1 in post #603]
And yet again, your only support for a claim is the bible, so we can dismiss it.Don't misrepresent what I said. I never said there are window like structures. I pointed out how long long ago, the bible says there were windows of heaven that opened. You are in no position to call that false. You have no science on it.
The past is not unknown, no matter how many times use try and use that as an excuse. For the past 5500 years or so, there are even written records to go by.False. God is not supposed to be bound by laws. Neither is the past that was in a nature that is unknown.
The story of Jack and the Beanstalk records a country boy selling the family cow for some magic beans, and when the boy plants them a giant beanstalk grows into the clouds. Jack climbs the beanstalk and finds that a mean giant lives in a castle at the top of it. Do you have any evidence to show that this is not a factual story? It was published in 1734, but similar versions are thought to originate from as far back as 4500 - 2500 BC ... older than Noah's flood. Was nature so different in the past that we should not discount the story as fiction? Of course not ... same with your wild ideas about windows on heaven and water flooding the Earth through wormhole-like structures, the "fishbowl", etc.They are recorded to have existed and you have no evidence that they did or did not. Period.
There's no reason to believe this nonsense any more than the Jack and the Beanstalk story ... they are both pure fiction whether you're talking about long ago, or today. Constantly claiming that nature, or time, or light, etc. were/are different is a convenient way to weasle out of every challenge, but it does nothing to support your arguments because you've yet to even attempt an explanation of why these proposed differences could/would exist, and how. Just throwing out could be, might be, we don't know (even when we do) scenarios has no legs ... it is pure hand-waving.Try to get your tenses right. Windows to heaven, and the flood do not exist today. They existed long ago. Believe it or not.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #607You have no way of knowing if there were or were not windows opened. So we will dismiss any guesses.
By what dating? The records are from after the flood. That was likely about 4500 years or so ago. Your dates cannot work that far back, they drift off into pure pure belief based assumptions. We also notice that spirits were a part of those ancient records/history! Sumer, Egypt, etc. So if you want to try and use those records, dates aside you now are offering spirits as evidence! Sumer (though untrustworthy pagan records) did record people living many centuries as well! The first kings of Egypt were spirit gods they claim! You really want to enter this into evidence?The past is not unknown, no matter how many times use try and use that as an excuse. For the past 5500 years or so, there are even written records to go by.
Even if silly tales were as old as the time right after Babel (good luck proving that) no one needs to disprove fairy stories. The bible is a carefully passed down sacred text that was preserved by scribes using extreme measures to pass it down perfectly. The people in the bible were not made up. Elisha, Moses, Abraham. Heck we know where Abraham's tomb is. Belief in spirits is a matter of record in many civilizations. Jesus appeared to over 500 people after He rose from the dead. It is a different matter to claim that records are not true and having some evidence, and just waving it all away using a fairy tale as an excuse.The story of Jack and the Beanstalk records a country boy selling the family cow for some magic beans, and when the boy plants them a giant beanstalk grows into the clouds. Jack climbs the beanstalk and finds that a mean giant lives in a castle at the top of it. Do you have any evidence to show that this is not a factual story? It was published in 1734, but similar versions are thought to originate from as far back as 4500 - 2500 BC
Your dates are wrong. No record is pre flood.... older than Noah's flood.
Nothing remotely similar about Scripture records and fantasy fables never meant to be taken seriously and with no credos at all.same with your wild ideas about windows on heaven and water flooding the Earth through wormhole-like structures, the "fishbowl", etc.
Yes there is. The rest of the bible is true and God is known to be very much alive and well by hundreds of millions of people. So what God said about how He created is part of a book that is signed sealed and delivered and confirmed a thousand ways. Science also has no evidence whatsoever against it. One might as well believe Jack in the Beanstalk as believe the faith based origin stories of science.There's no reason to believe this
My arguments need no support because my argument is that science doesn't know. That is obvious. There is no possible support or denial from science! You offering beliefs to model the past is not a 'challenge'. It is a sermon! A sermon you have shown you cannot begin to support.Constantly claiming that nature, or time, or light, etc. were/are different is a convenient way to weasle out of every challenge, but it does nothing to support your arguments because you've yet to even attempt an explanation of why these proposed differences could/would exist, and how.
You have every opportunity to prove you know rather than make claims you know. Tell us about how you know there was no portals in the sky bring water? No fountains of the deep that opened? No ark? No Noah? How about why nature on earth had to have been the same? Etc etc. Saying you do know truly has no merit.Just throwing out could be, might be, we don't know (even when we do) scenarios has no legs
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #6084th challenge.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 6:09 pm3rd challengeJoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 4:00 am2nd challengeJoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:22 pmI use the terminology of medical professionals, take your problem up with them.dad1 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:52 pmYou do not get to make the rules! Babies that are unborn are just little people. They used to say a woman was 'great with child' not great with fetus'! You want to call the victims of murder another name so that it seems less evil.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 6:34 pm A fetus is not a child. Your terminology is as antiquated as your thinking.
Where abortion is legal, "murder" is incorrect terminology. Take any problem you have with that to legal professionals.dad1 wrote:And I advocate that the innocent little people should be protected from murderers.JK wrote: I don't advocate for killing, but advocate for a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
I didn't know you were gonna tack on more stuff, so let me correct myself...dad1 wrote:Me too. But if she is carrying a machine gun and had uttered threats against a guy on the other side of that street, I am for the police stopping her.JK wrote: I'm for a woman's right to decide for herself if she wants to cross the street.
I'm for a woman's right to cross the street, unless she's doing it in order to shoot someone.
Is that the judgement of a god you can't show exists? Or the judgement of religious busybodies, and boy howdy, we know they exist?dad1 wrote: Then those locales have no vote in the judgment coming.
I never said otherwise.dad1 wrote:People do not need to be a woman to have rights actually.JK wrote: If he's the one that's pregnant.
I challenge you to show you speak truth in this matter.dad1 wrote:He told us in Scripture and He Himself while here confirmed that is true. His words are no mystery. No one can show God does not exist. The people who know Him know He exists.JK wrote: I'm unaware of anyone who can show God even exists, much less that they know his opinion.
First challenge.
I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.dad1 wrote:JK wrote: My position is to stand with a woman's right to control her body.
It is the child's body we are talking about. The woman who is pregnant also has a responsibility to care for the other body God sent in to her womb.
First challenge.
Let me update my answer then...Manson may have consented to wiping out some people. That did not give him the right to do so.
I'm for a woman's right to control her body unless Manson comes along and tells her to kill Sharon Tate.
I challenge you to show God sends babies.dad1 wrote:Knowing God sends babies, and that anyone that hurts the little people will have to face Him for the crime, I have every right and duty to tell the truth on the issue.JK wrote: What's your obsession with trying to make a woman's medical decisions for her?
First challenge.
The liar lies, and the preacher preaches
The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.
My goal in repeating these challenges is less about the claims, which we know have no truth to em, but about the lack of honor from our theist claimant.
If you can't trust a theist to tell the truth, can you trust anything they say?
Is lying just a sin for atheists, or do Christians get in trouble too?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #609Well don't that just rip up the mater patch.
Lying for Jesus must be a lucrative gig for some.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #610No science deals with anything spiritual, The flood was caused and orchestrated by a spirit, the universe was created by a spirit, the windows of heaven were opened by a spirit, the door of the ark was closed by a spirit. So if you have any science that deals with any of this, you could have posted it. Instead we see false accusations and the usual utter lack of substance or science.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:42 amWell don't that just rip up the mater patch.
Lying for Jesus must be a lucrative gig for some.