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.

[brunumb]

You can't comment on whether such claims are false or true, except by faith and opinion.

Your comment here does nothing to refute my assertion that you can't put truth to supernatural claims.

You have no way to know supernatural. You are guessing based on squat. (and doing so in the face or overwhelming evidence from all places and all ages)

Say what? If Joey has ho way of knowing the supernatural, how does anyone?

[JoeyKnothead]

You can't comment on whether such claims are false or true, except by faith and opinion.

Your comment here does nothing to refute my assertion that you can't put truth to supernatural claims.

You have no way to know supernatural. You are guessing based on squat. (and doing so in the face or overwhelming evidence from all places and all ages)

Say what? If Joey has no way of knowing the supernatural, how does anyone?

Really.

And I do shrooms!

[dad1]

I disagree.

Nothing in your comment here refutes my assertion that you can't put truth to supernatural claims.

I disagree

Nothing in your comment here refutes my assertion that you can't put truth to supernatural claims.

I disagree

See my quoted comment above.

I point out that putting truth to supernatural claims'd sure make me look wrong in my assertion.

That's nice

[JoeyKnothead]

See my quoted comment above.

I point out that putting truth to supernatural claims'd sure make me look wrong in my assertion.

That's nice

Nothing in your comment here refutes my assertion that you can't put truth to supernatural claims.

[dad1]

See my quoted comment above.

I point out that putting truth to supernatural claims'd sure make me look wrong in my assertion.

That's nice

Nothing in your comment here refutes my assertion that you can't put truth to supernatural claims.

Jesus took care of that, thanks. You have no way to prove me wrong. Or right. So feel free to parrot away.

[JoeyKnothead]

See my quoted comment above.

I point out that putting truth to supernatural claims'd sure make me look wrong in my assertion.

That's nice

Nothing in your comment here refutes my assertion that you can't put truth to supernatural claims.

Jesus took care of that, thanks. You have no way to prove me wrong. Or right. So feel free to parrot away.

Nothing in your comment here refutes my assertion that you can't put truth to supernatural claims.

[dad1]

See my quoted comment above.

I point out that putting truth to supernatural claims'd sure make me look wrong in my assertion.

That's nice

Nothing in your comment here refutes my assertion that you can't put truth to supernatural claims.

Jesus took care of that, thanks. You have no way to prove me wrong. Or right. So feel free to parrot away.

Nothing in your comment here refutes my assertion that you can't put truth to supernatural claims.

They already have truth. No need for me to mix more in. What has no truth is anyone claiming there is no supernatural.

[JoeyKnothead]

They already have truth. No need for me to mix more in. What has no truth is anyone claiming there is no supernatural.

Nothing in your comment here refutes my assertion that you can't put truth to supernatural claims.

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Locking thread due to multiple post reports, repeated infractions, and unconstructive posts.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[AquinasForGod]

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.

This is somewhat true, but it is more than just taking Genesis literally. I can take Aesop's fables literally without committing myself to believing frogs talk. It is not like the fable is a metaphor, say the one of the Ox and the frogs. It is a story I read literally, I don't read it metaphorically. I read the words to mean exactly what they state. I just happen to know that what the words stated are about a fantasy world, not our actual world.

So the problem comes when someone reads Genesis as though everything it says is about the actual world. They read it as though it were a history book, or even sometimes as though it were a book of science, which is it not.