A Conversation for Lies, Damned Lies, and Science Lessons

Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 41

Hoovooloo


"That alliterative nickname came from you of course, Hoo"

Au contraire, Della. That nickname came from YOU. Your actions, and nobody else's, led to it. That you still fail to understand this is regrettable but predictable.

"Nothing else you have said is worthy of an answer"

Does that have anything to do with the fact that nothing else I said was a question? smiley - huh

SoRB


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 42

Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit)

::throws up his hands in despair at bickering children (well, that IS what it sounds like...), and considers walking away, but that would be too easy::


Well, it looks like I've walked straight into the middle of an ongoing feud!!!

SoRB: you consider the bible to be a complete work of fiction, that IS your prerogative. Christian's (at least where I'm from) are taught that the OT contains some good lessons, but that the NT is where it is at. I was actually taught at Sunday School about the babylonian myth thing (genesis, etc...). I was also taught to respect my fellow man & his/her viewpoints, and to think for myself (that means drawing my OWN conclusions). I ask you again, the biblical interpretations you are espousing, are they entirely your own? Or are they inspired by another source, if they are, can you please point me at them?

Della: Hi. So far I have not caught SoRB lieing, merely interpreting things differfently to the way in which I and others I know and respect do. I see no reason to insult him. He has also not misquoted me at any stage, merely misunderstood what I have been saying.

Alfster: hmmm.. No, an example once again of following the teachings of Christ to love your fellow Human's (except I think it was phrased as MAN), and to "turn the other cheek" which flatly contradicts some of the OT teachings (e.g. and eye for an eye). IMHO, the OT can, you are quite right, largely be ignored.


OK that's enough... (I do note no-one has taken exception to my definition of Christian, thank you...), gotta go, put BenKOR to bed.


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 43

DA ; Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me!

<>

Good points...

Time may tell, however, or it may not.


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 44

Hoovooloo


"Well, it looks like I've walked straight into the middle of an ongoing feud!!!"

smiley - shrug Not really. As you note, I tend to stick to the truth. This has a tendency to occasionally put me in conflict with those who have, shall we say, a more distant relationship with honesty. Perhaps someone more "mature" would just let the lying go. Maybe I just need to grow up. Who knows?

"SoRB: you consider the bible to be a complete work of fiction,"

Hmm. Complete? It features figures who are historically corroborated - Pilate, Herod, etc. It also features figures and events which are fabricated. It also features figures and events for which the Bible is the only evidence.

I'd regard it, I think, in the same view as something like the movie "JFK" - some events depicted are real, some of the people are real, but there's an agenda and some creative licence being taken with the truth.

"Christian's (at least where I'm from) are taught that the OT contains some good lessons, but that the NT is where it is at."

Really? That was not what I was taught in any of the three church schools I attended. As far as they were concerned, the Bible was the Bible. Of course, they tended not to actually talk about any of the inconvenient parts, but I don't remember anyone ever explicitly saying that the NT was in some way more important.

"I was also taught to respect my fellow man & his/her viewpoints"

Hmm. And what if your fellow man's viewpoints are quite demonstrably lies, or nonsense with no connection with reality? Just what does someone have to do to lose your respect?

"I ask you again, the biblical interpretations you are espousing, are they entirely your own?"

And I repeat - they are my own, based on a reading of what the Bible actually says.

"IMHO, the OT can, you are quite right, largely be ignored."

D'you see it's that cherry picking of which bits of the Bible can safely be ignored that causes me a problem. Because if you give yourself and other Christians licence to do that - to effectively say "What god MEANT to say...", then you have licence to do anything at all that you like. You're setting your own morality, and kidding yourself that you're not.

I DO set my own morality - but at least I'm honest enough not to kid myself or anyone else about it.

SoRB


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 45

Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit)

"As you note, I tend to stick to the truth" As you see it, other people see the truth differentlt - unfortunately there can be no such thing as an objective truth once humans get involved.

JFK vs Bible - hmm some relevance in your comparison, personally I'd compare it more to something like Schindler's list, or Erin Brokovich, where the overarching story is true (I guess this is true of JFK) just some of the details are "muddled". However I'd compare the OT to something like Saving Private Ryan, where the detail is authentic and a lot of the stuff is relevant (and teaches us lessons about life), just the story is "made up".

"Really? That was not what I was taught in any of the three church schools I attended. As far as they were concerned, the Bible was the Bible. Of course, they tended not to actually talk about any of the inconvenient parts, but I don't remember anyone ever explicitly saying that the NT was in some way more important."

smiley - wow This was a CHRISTIAN Church? and the NT wasn't more important? (actually you say CHURCH SCHOOLS - not the same thing as Sunday School : where we were taught stuff from the Bible, and perhaps it was only there that the distinction was made). Mayhap I went to a particularly enlightened church then (It was a CofE "High Church" though - complete with silly Thuriballs and excessive ceremony! Since leaving that church I went to a more "modern" church which, I'll admit, did take the bible more literally at points, and, imho, became silly, I quickly left that one, and have not been back since... Ah you'll say what about when I said I didn't know any Christians that ... Well I said, "more literally" they still did not believe that the bible was the literal word of God. What was silly was the "speaking in Tongues" session - I just felt out of place, and embarrased for those that were "taken", I DID feel something while there - but I think it was Psychological rather than divine (ah, I should point out here that I studied Psychology at University)). I also went to two "church schools" and did Religious Education in my high school, where we learnt about many different religions, and were taught to respect others viewpoints (that does not mean personally accepting them, but taking them into consideration) by a CofE clergyman.

"Hmm. And what if your fellow man's viewpoints are quite demonstrably lies, or nonsense with no connection with reality? Just what does someone have to do to lose your respect?"

Just because I respect someone's PoV does NOT mean I respect them. To lose my respect, well that requires winning it in the first place. But: To lie and know they are lying (thanks for spelling that correctly - I DID wonder), without admitting they are lying. Not to respect my point of view, or to make any attempt to understand other peoples PoVs.


"And I repeat - they are my own, based on a reading of what the Bible actually says."

You repeat? OK, I missed where you stated this previously, sorry. Your reading of the first commandment, which is at odds with EVERY other reading I have ever come across, required me to ask that question, as I'd like to see what other people have made of it. Just because you read it one way, does not necessarily make it so.

OK, from your PoV: You interpret parts of a fictional work which say one thing (only worship YHWH as God) to infer the existence of other gods, and thus to rubbish what they believe.

My PoV: I interpret, one small part, of a semi-fictional work
: "Only worship YHWH as God, Don't worship anything/one else", as meaning that Man has, in his error, worshipped OTHER things as gods (e.g. trees, lightning, etc..) which are simply manifestations of "the one God". Note, this is my personal interpretation of what that commandment says, not, necessarily, what I believe to be TRUE.


"D'you see it's that cherry picking of which bits of the Bible can safely be ignored that causes me a problem. Because if you give yourself and other Christians licence to do that - to effectively say "What god MEANT to say...", then you have licence to do anything at all that you like. You're setting your own morality, and kidding yourself that you're not."

smiley - erm I can see why it would cause you a problem, nobody KNOWs what parts of the Bible ARE true, which is why people have to draw their own conclusions. (which is what you have done, I respect you for that, I'm interested in how you came to those conclusions).

Unfortunately too many people do not, they simply allow someone else to do it for them (e.g. The Koran is interpreted to say go and commit suicide to kill "infidels", when it also interpreted to say that to commit suicide is a "mortal" sin. [aside]I wonder how many of the people who came up with this interpretation do it?[/aside]) which FAR too often leads to evil acts...

"I DO set my own morality - but at least I'm honest enough not to kid myself or anyone else about it."

Do you? You have not been influenced by anybody else? Society has had no influence on your Morality? Has your "Morality" has been worked out from first principles? I find that difficult (though not impossible) to believe.

[aside]There is a trailer for a new program coming up on Channel 4 in the UK by Richard Dawkins, which seems intent on rubbishing all religion. Thre strapline is something like:
"Good People will be Good, Evil People will be Evil, but it takes religion for Good People to be Evil" (http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-189583.html right at the bottom). I have to disagree with Mr/Prof/Dr Dawkins on this point, and it almost made me dismiss the whole thing without further thought - as it is quite evident that, even without religion, Good people are quite capable of doing Evil things in pursuit of what they believe to be Good (e.g. Police, Politicians, etc...). And that "EVIL" people can do good things. IMHO when someone does something Evil (such as blowing up a Bus) they immediately become Evil. I can see this is a dangerous line of thought, so I'll stop it now... I can't.... What if those that do the "evil" do it for reasons of good? Are they then evil? No, no, no more ... What if someone does something good to facilitate an evil action? MUst.. Stop... Thinking... What is Evil, what is Good, is it all subjective? Is it then impossible to do something objectively GOOD? (or BAD?) Should I stop trying... going to explode ... Hayelp me......!!![/aside] (and all that was without reading the "student room" thread...)


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 46

Hoovooloo


>>"As you note, I tend to stick to the truth"
>As you see it, other people see the truth differently

Perhaps to be more clear I should have said "I tend to stick to the truth rather than spouting easily demolished lies as fact". I'm seeking to differentiate myself from a specific type of person here, rather than laying claim to any kind of monopoly on some elusive idea of truth.

"JFK vs Bible - hmm some relevance in your comparison, personally I'd compare it more to something like Schindler's list, or Erin Brokovich"

Feel free to pick a work of creative fiction presenting itself as fact.

"However I'd compare the OT to something [where] just the story is "made up"."

But as is often the case with works of creative fiction based loosely on fact, the problem arises at the interface - just where does the fact end and the fiction begin?

And if you're reducing the status of the OT to mere instructive fiction, why THOSE fictions particularly? (The answer which most churches would give would be that they are divinely inspired scripture, rather than the scribblings of a fantasist. To which my immediate response is - if they're divinely inspired, how come they're not True?)

"This was a CHRISTIAN Church? and the NT wasn't more important? (actually you say CHURCH SCHOOLS - not the same thing as Sunday School"

Well spotted.

"I went to a more "modern" church which, I'll admit, did take the bible more literally at points"

My schools didn't take the Bible particularly literally, they just didn't teach that the OT was in some way a less important part.

", and, imho, became silly, I quickly left that one, and have not been back since..."

The inklings of good judgement! smiley - ok

"they still did not believe that the bible was the literal word of God."

Didn't they say (or respond affirmatively to) the words "This is the word of the Lord" at any stage during their services? If so they are in my experience a rather unusual Christian church.

And if they DID say it, are you suggesting that they didn't mean it, or that they didn't know what they meant?

"What was silly was the "speaking in Tongues" session - I just felt out of place, and embarrased for those that were "taken","

Don't feel embarrassed. Feel pity.

"I DID feel something while there - but I think it was Psychological rather than divine"

Again, the inklings of good judgement... smiley - ok

"Your reading of the first commandment, [...] required me to ask that question[...]. Just because you read it one way, does not necessarily make it so. "

Of course. I was not merely referring to the first commandment, however. There is much else in the OT that shows that those writing it were polytheists, in the sense that they accepted the *existence* of other gods. They simply believed theirs was the "best".

I'll dig up some other references if I can...

"I DO set my own morality - but at least I'm honest enough not to kid myself or anyone else about it."

Do you? You have not been influenced by anybody else? Society has had no influence on your Morality? Has your "Morality" has been worked out from first principles? I find that difficult (though not impossible) to believe."

Of course I'm influenced by society. For a start, my own morality suggests that it's generally a good idea to behave in accordance with the (secular) law. Any other kind of morality is, in the long run, counterproductive. Indeed, if I were unfortunate enough to live in some benighted theocracy, I daresay my morality would be based pretty closely on the prevailing superstition, the better to go unnoticed. But I do not look to an outside agency to *justify* my morality. I don't do good things and avoid doing bad things because I'll be rewarded in some childish vision of a heaven after death, or because I'm terrified of some unspecified punishment if I don't.

"IMHO when someone does something Evil (such as blowing up a Bus) they immediately become Evil."

Interesting. Is killing a man evil? Is killing a man in self defence, evil? Are soldiers evil? Must they be in uniform when they do their killing? Evil is a slippery concept.

Personally, I don't believe people - ANY people - are Evil. They just do more or less evil things, more or less often than other people.

And although I disagree with the rather black & white way Dawkins has phrased his soundbite title, I can see his point. Right now, far too many people justify doing the most monstrous things in the name of a god, and when they invoke that excuse it quells all argument. No other excuse would be so universally useful, so devastatingly unarguable (with the possibly exception of patriotism and "homeland security" - but arguably even that is predicated on "one nation under [a pretty specifically white Christian] god".)

"What is Evil, what is Good, is it all subjective?"

The Enlightenment is just around the corner. European civilisation went through it a few centuries back, but there's always plenty of room for more. smiley - ok

"Is it then impossible to do something objectively GOOD? (or BAD?)"

An action, good or bad, can only be judged as good or bad in its own context. For instance, judge the two following "actions", objectively, shorn of any context:

1. A man beats another man unconscious.
2. A man lavishes much of his income on his son's education and welfare.

Objectively, shorn of context, pretty clear BAD, and GOOD, respectively.

Now put some context on each:

1. The man is a householder, the "victim" a violent intruder.
2. The son is a wastrel, while the man's three much more deserving daughters are neglected purely because of their gender.

Presumably your opinion of which was a "good" and "bad" action is reversed. So the context is everything.

But the context is different for everyone - the householder may feel terrible guilt for beating the intruder, even if to you his action seems reasonable. One of the daughters may pity her brother and not mind his favourable treatment.

As you can see, in my opinion, the concepts of good and evil cannot be divorced from their context, and therefore they can never be objectively evaluated.

Blimey, that was a bit much for a Monday afternoon.

SoRB


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 47

Hoovooloo


A few references to other gods in the Bible...

Exodus 12:12 - a reference to all the gods of Egypt, against whom the god of Israel will "execute judgement". Hard to do if they don't exist.

Also Numbers 33:4 for a similar statement.

Judges 11:24 - pretty specifically states that there is a god called Chemosh, an entity with the power to distribute land and possessions, apparently.

Psalm 82:1 - The god of Israel stands in a congregation of the mighty, and judges among the gods.

Psalm 96:4 - He is to be feared above all gods.

There are others, but I think these are adequate enough to demonstrate that the existence of other gods (not just of their worshippers, but of the actual gods) was not merely acknowledged but indeed *taken for granted* by the writers of the Bible.

SoRB


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 48

Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit)

SoRB - I find some of your comments to be, how shall I put this, smiley - erm Preachy? No, not quite, Sancitmonious, no that's not the right word.. AH Patronising that's it!! Its not clever, or helpful.. And I'm not going to point them out.

Thanks for the references, all OT I notice...

smiley - erm"Judges 11:24 - pretty specifically states that there is a god called Chemosh, an entity with the power to distribute land and possessions, apparently." Depends where you read it - Fish-god, god of war, etc... There is no doubt that those that wrote the OT were, at the very least, surrounded by those that believed in Many Gods. However to say that Christian's/Christianity believe in many gods is misleading and seems to confuse Christianity with Judaism.

Interestingly when I followed up Chemosh I was quickly lead to the Skeptics Annotated Bible - which I believe Della was accusing you of "Plagiarising" (Not her words), interesting resource I shall read some more.

Oh, and Chemosh was identified as originating from the same "concept" as Yahweh in one source.

Sorry I can't be bothered to follow up all the refs you've given, at the moment, got a train to catch.

I shall have to ask a Jew what he/she thinks about multiple gods then.

You know, a lot of it *could* be down to mistranslation of the term for Angel... (but I doubt it).




Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 49

Ménalque

Argon,

"to say that Christian's/Christianity believe in many gods is misleading"

Christianty does believe in many gods, three to be precise; father, son and holy spirit.

And before you come back at me with 'they're all one god really', the most mainstream version of hinduism (in my experience) also believes that all its many deities are different aspects of the same 'Supreme Universal Spirit' (often known as Brahma), but this dosn't stop many Christians refering to hinduism as a polytheistic religion.

blub-blub


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 50

Rudest Elf


Della smiley - zen

You've got to hand it to her, folks, she does have a point! smiley - ok


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 51

Hoovooloo


I just watched this evening's edition of Celebrity Big Brother.

Jodie Marsh and Della - separated at birth?

SoRB


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 52

Alfster


Chav.


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 53

Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit)

"I just watched this evening's edition of Celebrity Big Brother."

Oh, Dear, SoRB what a lapse in Judgement...

smiley - erm Hindusm mono or polytheistic - I don't have enough knowledge to comment - but I'll take your word for it (for the moment).

One of the central Tenets of Christianity is that God is "three in one" One God with 3 seperate Aspects (Father, Son and Holy Ghost), not Three gods (that is what Christians Believe - despite what non-christians may think - Belief does not require things to be logically consistent - it just helps if they are...)

I have often pondered that other "gods" may also be mere aspects of the same one god, at times I have also thought that there may be more than one "Creator", or that the "creator" of this universe was itself "created" (and so on ad infinitum), or that there is nothing out there but physics (smiley - erm not sure what I mean by that - that there is no god/creator we/the universe is just a random collection of stuff - ah which leads me into another issue - what do people mean by Universe: all that exists? I hold that what most people call the Universe is but one COSMOS, potentially amongst many, as logically you can only have ONE UNIverse), or that all that really exists is Energy, OR that all this is but a dream/nightmare, and none of you exist (or I don't exist and am just a dream/nightmare in everybody else's head)...

OR, and this is quite compelling if you follow the logic, that we are all dreams inside some sort of giant future computer (á la Matrix)... smiley - erm Logic goes something like this... In the Future computers will continue to evolve to the point where it will be trivial to simulate - perfectly - the environment in which we live, someone WILL simulate it (at the moment scientists are trying to simulate the Big Bang (which smiley - erm some are now saying may never have happened)), once simulated once, it will be EVEN MORE trivial to simulate it thousands or BILLIONS of times (maybe with something slightly different in each one or maybe all identical), there is no way residents of these simulations would be able to tell the difference... Given the odds (only one original Reality to billions of Simulated Reality) there is an incredibly small chance that we are living in the original reality... However as the simulation would be identical/indistinguishable from the original there is no way we can ever know.... Or maybe there NEVER WAS an original Reality, and its all just a simulation...

(actually what I believe is somewhat more complex than any of this, but as I'm not evangelical about my beliefs I don't try and inflict them on others, just try to understand what they believe, & see if there is anything amongst their beliefs of which I should take notice....)


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 54

Hoovooloo


"In the Future computers will continue to evolve to the point where it will be trivial to simulate - perfectly - the environment in which we live"

I dispute that, on grounds of uncertainty principle and chaos theory, among others. Don't want to get into it though. Interesting idea though. Can't reductio it all the way ad absurdum, though, because a simulation by definition needs a simulator and a simuland - some substrate in which to exist (the computer) and some original input (the base reality).

SoRB


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 55

Argon0 (50 and feeling it - back for a bit)

Yeah - I know - didn't say it was true, just that its an interesting idea which is difficult to logically disprove...

smiley - erm "on grounds of uncertainty principle and chaos theory" the observations which have lead to these theories could have been simulated....

And you notice I don't say the entire universe? (I don't say that you didn't notice this) There is no need to simulate the Universe, just the observers, which limits the range of what you need to simulate..

In fact taking the argument further, there is no need to simulate anything other than MY PoV (or yours if you are reading this), and the stimuli that reach me/you...


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 56

Ménalque

Argon,

"One of the central Tenets of Christianity is that God is "three in one" One God with 3 seperate Aspects"

This was the point I thought you would bring up and tried to respond to in my last post. Just as christianty has the trinity so hinduism (most forms) has the Trimurti, Brahma-the Creator,Vishnu-the preserver,Shiva-the destroyer. They have many lesser deities as well (Kali, Ganesha, Lakshmi etc.). However, ALL of these are understood as different 'perceptions' on the same, ONE god, Brahman. However, neither Hinduism *nor* Christianty are truely monotheistic due to their belief in a god viewed in different ways.

"to say that Christian's/Christianity believe in many gods is misleading". If this is true then it is equally misleading to say Hindus believe in many gods, yet this dosn't stop many christians still refering to it as a polytheistic religion.


Meanwhile, the belief in dreaming is certainly intresting, but there is one major flaw. To suggest we are dreaming is to suggest we are unconscious, yet to start questioning the world around us, to not take what we see at face value, is to disply a consiousnes of reality.

blub-blub


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 57

IctoanAWEWawi

just as an aside, it is entirely possible to be conscious and dreaming.


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 58

Ménalque

A breif of description I keep handy in favorites due to its consiceness, Norman Malcolm on Dreams.


http://koti.mbnet.fi/oneira/malcolm1.htm

A problem with lucid dreaming is still that a dream 'experience'is different from those of waking life. Think of the senses you can't use whilst dreaming - touch for example (hence "pinch yourself" means check you're awake), and of interfrence from you're waking life (eg alarm cocks)

blub-blub


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 59

Ménalque

I meant CLOCKS. SORRY!

blub-blub


Perhaps your creation of this article...

Post 60

Noggin the Nog

<>

But the simulation still has to *generate* those stimuli, and if this is not done at random (which even for pattern seeking minds like ours would hardly be likely to produce an apparently coherent universe such as we perceive) then it must be done according to rules that relate the stimuli to each other (and modify them according to the actions of the observer). And for the observer this is enough to qualify the simulation as reality. It has all the properties, as far as the observer is concerned, that what we take to be reality has for us.

Noggin


Key: Complain about this post