The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

The 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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #600]

Right, and...so?

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 once again bring up the flood. Why??

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.

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.

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.

[dad1]

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.

Well that part of the sky is included. Ask any child where a bird flies.

Because you keep insisting it actually happened,

You brought it up. Why would I not then correct wrong facts and claims about it?

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.

These old bible stories cannot be taken literally, because they violate known natural phenomena and physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.

False. God is not supposed to be bound by laws. Neither is the past that was in a nature that is unknown.

There's no point wasting scientific efforts on trying to disprove things that have never been shown to exist

They are recorded to have existed and you have no evidence that they did or did not. Period.

, and aren't in the least bit reasonable to expect 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.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
A child would not understand this, and might easily buy into silly stories of global floods in the recent past (which you constantly bring up, not your opponents) because they don't know any better and have no science education.
...

You'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.

[JoeyKnothead]

A fetus is not a child. Your terminology is as antiquated as your thinking.

You 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.

I use the terminology of medical professionals, take your problem up with them.

I don't advocate for killing, but advocate for a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

And I advocate that the innocent little people should be protected from murderers.

Where abortion is legal, "murder" is incorrect terminology. Take any problem you have with that to legal professionals.

I'm for a woman's right to decide for herself if she wants to cross the street.

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.

I didn't know you were gonna tack on more stuff, so let me correct myself...

I'm for a woman's right to cross the street, unless she's doing it in order to shoot someone.

Then those locales have no vote in the judgment coming.

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?

If he's the one that's pregnant.

People do not need to be a woman to have rights actually.

I never said otherwise.

I'm unaware of anyone who can show God even exists, much less that they know his opinion.

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.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this matter.

First challenge.

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.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

First challenge.

Manson may have consented to wiping out some people. That did not give him the right to do so.

Let me update my answer then...

I'm for a woman's right to control her body unless Manson comes along and tells her to kill Sharon Tate.

What's your obsession with trying to make a woman's medical decisions for her?

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.

I challenge you to show God sends babies.

First challenge.

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches

2nd challenge

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.

3rd challenge
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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #603]

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.

And yet again, your only support for a claim is the bible, so we can dismiss it.

False. God is not supposed to be bound by laws. Neither is the past that was in a nature that is unknown.

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.

They are recorded to have existed and you have no evidence that they did or did not. Period.

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.

Try to get your tenses right. Windows to heaven, and the flood do not exist today. They existed long ago. Believe it or not.

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.

[dad1]

And yet again, your only support for a claim is the bible, so we can dismiss it.

You have no way of knowing if there were or were not windows opened. So we will dismiss any guesses.

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.

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 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

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.

... older than Noah's flood.

Your dates are wrong. No record is pre flood.

same with your wild ideas about windows on heaven and water flooding the Earth through wormhole-like structures, the "fishbowl", etc.

Nothing remotely similar about Scripture records and fantasy fables never meant to be taken seriously and with no credos at all.

There's no reason to believe this

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.

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.

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.

Just throwing out could be, might be, we don't know (even when we do) scenarios has no legs

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

A fetus is not a child. Your terminology is as antiquated as your thinking.

You 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.

I use the terminology of medical professionals, take your problem up with them.

I don't advocate for killing, but advocate for a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

And I advocate that the innocent little people should be protected from murderers.

Where abortion is legal, "murder" is incorrect terminology. Take any problem you have with that to legal professionals.

I'm for a woman's right to decide for herself if she wants to cross the street.

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.

I didn't know you were gonna tack on more stuff, so let me correct myself...

I'm for a woman's right to cross the street, unless she's doing it in order to shoot someone.

Then those locales have no vote in the judgment coming.

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?

If he's the one that's pregnant.

People do not need to be a woman to have rights actually.

I never said otherwise.

I'm unaware of anyone who can show God even exists, much less that they know his opinion.

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.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this matter.

First challenge.

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.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

First challenge.

Manson may have consented to wiping out some people. That did not give him the right to do so.

Let me update my answer then...

I'm for a woman's right to control her body unless Manson comes along and tells her to kill Sharon Tate.

What's your obsession with trying to make a woman's medical decisions for her?

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.

I challenge you to show God sends babies.

First challenge.

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches

2nd challenge

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.

3rd challenge
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?

4th challenge.

Is lying just a sin for atheists, or do Christians get in trouble too?

[JoeyKnothead]

...
You have every opportunity to prove you know rather than make claims you know.
...

Well don't that just rip up the mater patch.

Lying for Jesus must be a lucrative gig for some.

[dad1]

...
You have every opportunity to prove you know rather than make claims you know.
...

Well don't that just rip up the mater patch.

Lying for Jesus must be a lucrative gig for some.

No 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.