Science-Religion. Which wins?

mifune · May 31, 2010, 2:43am

As foolfromhell already replied, supernaturalism has no basis in reality by its very definition. In fact, the invisibility in the sky is purposely kept from the empirical realm to attempt to keep it resistant to invalidation. Influences based in reality are testable by nature, but anti-material thought insulates one’s convictions from scientific challenges.

That is completely incorrect and wasn’t what hahalolk indicated whatsoever. The Lower Paleolithic era dates to 2.5 million years ago and provides evidence for the first use of stone tools by our sapient ancestors. Findings have subsequently filled the archaeological record from that point.

Humans were not created as humans – that is a fact regardless of your uninformed suppositions. Anatomically, humans, in their present form, existed approximately 195,000 years ago.

[BBC</a> NEWS | Science/Nature | Age of ancient humans reassessed](<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4269299.stm]BBC”>BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Age of ancient humans reassessed)

Genome sequencing has determined that humans and chimpanzees have evolved separately for 6.5 million years.

[Implications</a> of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo ? PNAS](<a href=“http://www.pnas.org/content/100/12/7181.full]Implications”>http://www.pnas.org/content/100/12/7181.full)

You can certainly say that again.

“Observable” does not mean that something must be explicitly viewed.

However, its morally correct to adamantly oppose any measure in which parents foist their religious beliefs on their children, of placing manifest fabrications within the minds of impressionable young children.

mifune · May 31, 2010, 2:46am

You are really missing the point. Human history and its progressions simply cannot logically fit into a 6,000-year timeframe. A basic understanding of anthropology would manifest the patent implausibility of your baseless assertions. The evidence within the domains of evolutionary biology, radiometric dating, geology, anthropology, and sociology overwhelming oppose your view. You may wish to peruse Wikipedia’s millennium pages (one of them is posted below) to view the confirmed timescales that irrevocably refute your position.

[Verified</a> developments in the ancient past](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_millennium_BC]Verified”>5th millennium BC - Wikipedia)

As foolfromhell stated, if you continue to dismiss substantive proof and submit nothing but an uneducated and unsophisticated view on such matters, there is really no point in arguing with you.

mifune · May 31, 2010, 2:48am

You have been resorting to the ad hominem and elementary slander with great frequency despite bemoaning its senselessness earlier.

I do not find the explicit support for any of the above amoral qualities to be favorable. And don’t dispute that the character did not warrant each of those descriptors.

Why are you dismissing, or even trivializing, the character’s statements?

The Christian Bible promotes religious intolerance, maiming, holy wars, the suppression of women’s equality, genocide (particularly that of the Amalekites and Canaanites), and openly tolerates the institution of slavery (in both the Old and New Testaments). Don’t you find the moral standards epitomized within the Christian Bible to be frail, malignant, and attuned to conformist tendencies?

It’s not a matter that can be simply dismissed as interpretively ambiguous or phenomenological in origin. Lightness and darkness (the day-night cycle) are, according to Genesis, created before the stars. Moreover, the Earth, as it claims, was created before the stars and before the sun in this solar system, which any mentally sound individual will recognize as patently false. (I will follow with more empirical biblical fallacies further down in this present set of posts.)

mifune · May 31, 2010, 2:56am

The timescale of events is transparently contradicted by irrefutable scientific fact. It is nothing more than primitive literary entertainment. What proof do you have for its validity other than your own delusional biases?

What basis do you have for that statement? Creative intelligence naturally comes at a later point in the universe – as it is evolved, and is not essential in designing anything.

What about the “truth” that you propound? As was necessary, you have conceded that the religious enthusiasts on this thread promote inconsistent, contradictory viewpoints, which, of course, yield the inherent falsity of the purported claims. Not to mention, of course, that you all adhere to beliefs within the same basic religious domain.

Your views rise closer to the level of televangelism (blind necessity of religious adherence) than any other individual in this thread. Similar to Oral Roberts, perhaps you can jaunt about with your baseless chauvinistic Christian attitude, claim that “God” will dispose of you if your audience does not give you eight million dollars, and watch your gullible subordinates mindlessly submit to your demand.

The Christian Bible is empirically wrong on several different matters – physically, chemically, biologically, anthropologically, and archaeologically, among other arguable subsets. Here are quotes from William G. Dever, a Biblical archaeologist:

“Archaeology certainly doesn’t prove literal readings of the Bible…It calls them into question, and that’s what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[103] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the “archeological revolution.” Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that’s very disturbing to some people.”

“Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the ‘larger than life’ portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence.[105]…I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed ‘stories,’ often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information”

[The</a> Bible and Interpretation](<a href=“http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Contra_Davies.shtml]The”>http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Contra_Davies.shtml)

mifune · May 31, 2010, 3:07am

Can you say with the utmost confidence that the bloke even exists at all without continually propounding some convoluted, pseudo-intellectual delusion to which you adhere? (I also see that you have conceded that you merely make assumptions in the existence of the supernatural.)

No, “God” is not the one involved – it’s all the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You mindlessly adhere to the theistic viewpoint without corroborating evidence that upholds your stance. You ought to substantiate your belief for its existence if you wish it to be true. Those on the scientific/naturalism side of the argument can substantiate the justification for such through an overwhelming body of evidence (and the mere act of living in it regarding the latter case).

What about personal attacks am I supposed to find even remotely funny?

First of all, your definition of “creationism” is extraordinarily simple to invalidate. Creationist belief extends beyond those who indiscriminately endow trust in Genesis. ([An</a> overview of more creation absurdities](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myths]An”>Creation myth - Wikipedia)) The more proper definition is “the belief that the universe and living organisms arise by means of distinct supernatural action or that any material reality is derived from non-natural or non-material forces.”

In this instance, why do you simply selectively choose whatever you wish to believe and/or the degree or intensity to which you adhere toward some belief? That is essentially what you are doing if you do not precisely abide by that in which is stated within scripture. If you wish to take the Christian Bible as partial – rather than complete – fact, then how can you consider yourself to be a “true Christian?”

mifune · May 31, 2010, 3:11am

This, of course, comes from an individual who can in no way corroborate a belief in “God.” You propound nothing but imperious, dogmatic claims of your own religious truth, despite explicitly acknowledging that you make assumptions concerning the validity of your statements, the unambiguous inconsistencies of your assertions relative to the other religious followers, and the precipitous slope of improbability that weighs against your claims.

Yes, you have no other option other than to label it as a belief – or a matter of faith. However, if you would like your claim to be true, provide evidence for that assertion.

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

It doesn’t exist in the observable universe, yet, according to Christian theists, it has influence governing natural affairs (a realm in which it supposedly doesn’t exist) and on our species (an inherently anthropocentric notion). The typical - well, actually near-uniform - method is to keep it out of reality so it cannot be invalidated.

What mechanism does the thing have to create these laws?

You are actually not asking a serious question that adds any dynamicism to the discussion but rather exposing a spiteful intent to completely misconstrue my statements to denote that those indulged in religious belief are innately inferior. I explained that specifically to you, yet you choose to purposely misapprehend my point or fail to understand it at all.

mifune · May 31, 2010, 3:20am

Nothing about that is quixotic by any means. Science acts to release us from the cognitive shackles of ineffective explanation and any useless vestige of our primitive nature. One cannot simply adhere to arbitrary rules or introduce false variables when conducting scientific investigation.

Would you honestly like me to find the quote where you state that you “quarrel” with “molecules-to-man” evolution? Also, the formation of multicellular organisms from unicellular structures has been observed on numerous occasions under certain environmental conditions.

Again, your definition of creationism is completely incorrect because it exclusively creates an erroneous polarity between those who believe in the fabrications of Genesis and those who do not. Creationist beliefs also exist among those who adhere to religions apart from Christianity that propound their own creation myths, therefore nullifying your definition.

Have you proven that the Christian Bible is inerrant? (It certainly isn’t.) Have you invalidated other religious and supernatural beliefs? Why aren’t Zeus and his gang the correct deities? Why isn’t Allah real? Why isn’t the Flying Spaghetti Monster that exists outside our conception of reality correct?

The conception of the Tanakh is clearly that of the flat Earth model:
[ul][]“From the four corners of the earth.” (Isaiah 11:12) []“And spreading out the earth all alone” (Isaiah 44:24))[/ul]

It also erroneously displays the belief in a geocentric theory of the universe:

[ul][]“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped…The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.” (Joshua 10:12-13)
[]“The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” (Psalms 93:1)
[]“The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)
[]”Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” (Psalms 104:5)[/ul]

mifune · May 31, 2010, 3:24am

You are completely ill-advised. Explicit and implicit statements within the Christian Bible do contradict what has been verified, visibly and with indisputable resolution.

[ul][li]Grasses and plants were created after the sun, quite obviously, yet that fact is contradicted by the Genesis 1 account. [/li]
[li]Prokaryotes were the first organisms on Earth, yet Genesis 1 contradicts that by claiming that land plants preceded every other form of life, while Genesis 2 fallaciously claims that “Adam” (a humanoid) introduced life. [/li]
[li]Fruit trees evolved after fish and other aquatic organisms, not before.[/li]
[li]Humans are evolved, not created from dirt or some other bogus assertion.[/li]
[li]Birds evolved from land animals. Both accounts of Genesis controvert that fact. [/ul][/li]
In short, Genesis, through its biological variance is false on several many accounts. Thus, science has empirically invalidated many of the truth-claims in Genesis alone. The portion merely reflects the the primitive, ignorant workings of the uneducated mind rather than material that should be senselessly accepted as veritable.

mifune · May 31, 2010, 3:28am

Okay, a bit of progress. So you do agree that not all religions are correct in their assertions. Moreover, you have limited your judgment to accepting one religion as the ultimate means of “truth” – thus implicitly consigning thousands of other religions to the cognitive scrap pile.

Objectively assess the reality that this “correct” religion is uniformly accurate in its assertions if it is naturally created on the same underlying psychological foundations as the other systems of belief that you know to be incorrect.

But the Christian Bible is not humanity’s sole religious text. Others have their own god(s), creation myths, assertions, and truth-claims that are completely separate from what is stated within the Christian Bible.

How is Christianity any more rational than the religions that you do not treat as valid accounts? How is it any more rational than a supernatural belief in an invisible elephant, unicorn, vampire, or any other chimerical being that humanity sees - or had once seen - as essential to natural understanding?

Of course, the knee-jerk response is that you simply know that others religions and Flying Spaghetti Monsters living outside reality have no basis in such. It’s plainly obvious to you – your sense and reason returns with fantastic resolution. But many theists in opposing religious systems use that same commonsensical approach to denounce Christianity as a complete sham as well.

Simply put, religion, on a communitarian basis, was borne out of psychological dependence, local folklore, private revelation, and the pestilential quality of opinion, which first led to religious belief on the foundation of primal, sectarian animisms. Those beliefs eventually transferred to a metamorphosis into polytheistic beliefs, of personifying certain natural elements. Those, in turn, naturally differentiated into monotheistic tendencies. Of course, such progression breeds overbearing inconsistencies. In essence, religion can be viewed as a progressive cultural phenomenon rather than a system with a naturally fundamentally framework for elucidating natural or empirical matters.

Does the Christian Bible explain why its assertions are correct or empirically derive its statements in any way?

And why do you claim with great certainty that one religion is correct? And specifically, why is your religion correct whereas the others’ are invalid authorities? There is an infinite set of possibilities for making some groundless, convoluted set of claims about the world. What is one divided by infinity?

Given that you agree that all religions are not correct, what makes you believe that you are not yet another deluded follower of another bogus set of claims? You simply have a psychological disposition to emotional attachment. You fear mortality and, by extension, irrationally fear being relegated to some fiery underworld for the simple act of not believing in the Christian god regardless of how virtuous one may have been under the doctrine of a separate religion or without any theological influence. However, I am positive that other religions testify to the same fate awaiting those who do not overtly express belief in their god(s) or for those unevangelized in the Christian dogma. As your claims now follow, your rationalization for your faith is that it is true simply because you wish it to be.

Supernatural belief is a peremptory and imperious concept that is somehow liberated from the common sense and rationalism of everyday life and the persistent need for persuasion and solid belief, which oversees our mental conduct in the common affairs of life. Yet you dare not acknowledge or confront any doubts that you contemplate regarding your faith. You make merit in a taken-for-granted faith and veil yourself to your true infidelities.

mifune · May 31, 2010, 3:38am

Of course peer review doesn’t exist in religion – there is no means of providing credibility to its assertions because it has relegated itself to a sphere where it does not require evidence.

That’s not what I intimated. One cannot test baseless assertions against nature. And if one cannot assess truth-claims about reality against a valid foundation of evidence, then they are essentially unsupported, hollow, and inconsequential. Hence, there is no need for such. In turn, any individual can make ill-founded assertions about some metaphysical phenomenon and defend it through pseudo-intellectual claims, misjudgment, unfounded support, or some other fantastical whim. The same remains for any other form of quackery.

Providing inherently meaningless and nonessential adages doesn’t support your argument by any means.

My point was that other conceptions, such as astrology, Jack and the Beanstalk, the perceived efficacy of prayers, talismans, and incantations are based on the same foundations as religion – through claims without supporting evidence, declarations that contradict real-world fact and other truth-claims in separate religions, “occurrences” that violate the laws of physics, all while not subjecting themselves to the possibility for validation by claiming an existence in some realm which cannot be observed.

mifune · May 31, 2010, 3:41am

Where in the words of “contrary means different” do you see a religious reference?

My point was that the very act of recognizing the inanity in supernatural adherence, worshipping separate gods, or disbelieving its inconsistent, non-evidenced, spurious, and contradictory claims is stigmatized as the most foremost of all mortal sins. The implications of such a device set ideal conditions for wielding unjust authority.

Then you cannot defensively play the “you have no immersion” card if you lack widespread religious experience yourself.

So, fundamentally, your denunciation of Tibetan Buddhism, Shintoism, and Hinduism resides on your superficial, individualized dismissal that they simply did not appease your own personal biases or opinions.

Allow me to ask you this: If you were born into a family that strictly practiced Islam (and any digression or disbelief was considered heresy), do you honestly believe that you would presently be so entrenched in the Christian faith? Given your obvious susceptibility to mechanically adhere to religious belief, one could easily surmise that you would argue for Islam’s “truth” in much the same way that you emotionally glue yourself to Christianity’s maxims, since it is something that you have been exposed to since infancy. The same would hold true in a separate faith, or even a more primitive faith before Christianity’s snowball absorbed many of the ideas and won converts from its pagan predecessors.

Exactly. And how can you claim that one of these no-longer-existent religious systems has no more validity than your own? Moreover, according to your belief, how do you know that one of such was not the “one” that was correct?

I primarily asked you the question to expose your own folly in using such a squandering tactic.

mifune · May 31, 2010, 3:49am

Of course such an unfounded claim is a mere matter of opinion. If you cannot provide a persuasive justification for your belief, then one has no other choice other than to categorically file it under the same assertions advanced in the realms of pseudoscience, superstition, sophistry, and any generalized form of baseless thinking.

Furthermore, if supernatural beings create things, what mechanism does it have? Where does it get the raw matter? Through what means does it accomplish these tasks? When does it crawl out of this non-observable realm and into the material world to exert its influence? I do not ask these questions out of the spirit of inquiry, but rather to expose the inanity of the entire perspective.

That’s not a correct analogy and isn’t a properly simplified method of conceptualizing religious belief. A more proper mathematical analogy would be the selection among the infinite set of numbers that satisfy the answer to the expression 0/0. However, I am pleased that you are at least receptive to the truth that no two systems agree on theological matters. Also, you agree that you make nothing more than assumptions, which also stands as a bit of progress.

mifune · May 31, 2010, 3:51am

You are explaining absolutely nothing and making uncritical, presumptuous conclusions. That “deduction” is simply conceding that you do not have an explanation and that you are not willing to actively find one. It is no better than attributing the existence of the seasons to Persephone’s descent into the “underworld” or declaring the Earth to be flat simply because it appears that way.

Regarding the claims that “God” is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, a quick glance around demonstrates that humanity – or any other animal for that matter – is not uniformly happy or pleased with every aspect of its existence. Therefore, “God” does not intend or ordain happiness. Is it willing to thwart evil, but simply incapable of doing so? Then it is not omnipotent. Is it able, but simply unwilling? Then it is vindictive (similar to the resentful character portrayed within the Old Testament). Is it able, willing, but simply unaware? Then it is not omniscient. As such, one cannot properly account for evil if one assumes that it has the three qualities – thus invalidating those perceptions and its existence as such.

The belief in an invisible, omniscient being has been greatly propagated throughout the human race, yet no two out of the several thousand systems of belief can precisely agree on its concoctions, exaggerations, and asseverations. The one common distinction, though, is the belief in supernatural elements – some unbefitting anthropomorphized conception of nature – to guide beliefs, borne out of anthropocentric tendency. Humans are excited to feel that they, being the dominant species on Earth, have been selected out of creation to be under the guidance of a “supreme being.” But if one contrasts this image of a divinity across the entire spectrum of religious belief, one may witness the sheer variety and inconsistencies of the perceived abstraction in its form, proficiencies, and mechanistic aptitudes. It’s not a good recipe for persuasion and the sensible individual cannot help but conclude that these faddish, unreliable, and whimsical assertions are nothing more than mere sophistry.

TheAscendancy · May 31, 2010, 3:55am

mifune, I believe the exact quote is:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

-Epicurus

panache · May 31, 2010, 4:57am

No explanation? Hardly. I believe I’ve made it fairly clear that by drawing from science’s discoveries and logic, the only possible explanation for existence is an infinite being. I’m very willing to concede that this creator may not be the Christian God, but parallels are easily surmised given the criteria for making this entity’s existence hold even a candle of possibility. To compare this theory to a disproved notion (the Earth’s flatness) and mythology lacking even more ground than Christianity itself is fallacious.

With the universe (time, space, etc) essentially proven to be finite and the knowledge that something cannot come from nothing, I’m curious: how do you explain creation?

The Christian Bible attests to a deity that is just, loving, and wrathful. Eve’s disobedience is said to have released evil and we now face the consequences put forth by a God who was wronged. Vindictive? Perhaps. However, God does promise eternal life and happiness should one choose to follow Him; is that not compensation enough for the evils faced in earthly life to the faithful believer? Many Christians feel that He also performs miracles, however small or large; directs them down the right path; provides stability, etc. Then again, maybe this is matter above human comprehension.

For what it’s worth, I’m merely playing devil’s advocate. I’m choosing to keep my personal beliefs out of this thread.

mifune, as an aside, I notice a common theme in your posts is to imply that theists lack the sense and/or intelligence atheists possess. Do you truly find religion so abhorrent and idiotic?

panache · May 31, 2010, 5:01am

No explanation? Hardly. I believe I’ve made it fairly clear that by drawing from science’s discoveries and logic, the only possible explanation for existence is an infinite being. I’m very willing to concede that this creator may not be the Christian God, but parallels are easily surmised given the criteria for making this entity’s existence hold even a candle of possibility. To compare this theory to a disproved notion (the Earth’s flatness) and mythology lacking even more ground than Christianity itself is fallacious.

With the universe (time, space, etc) essentially proven to be finite and the knowledge that something cannot come from nothing, I’m curious: how do you explain creation?

The Christian Bible attests to a deity that is just, loving, and wrathful. Eve’s disobedience is said to have released evil and we now face the consequences put forth by a God who was wronged. Vindictive? Perhaps. However, God does promise eternal life and happiness should one choose to follow Him; is that not compensation enough for the evils faced in earthly life to the faithful believer? Many Christians feel that He also performs miracles, however small or large; directs them down the right path; provides stability, etc. Then again, maybe this is matter above human comprehension.

For what it’s worth, I’m merely playing devil’s advocate.

mifune, as an aside, I notice a common theme in your posts is to imply that theists lack the sense and/or intelligence atheists possess. Do you truly find religion so abhorrent and idiotic?

bagelsbagels · May 31, 2010, 5:21am

Science has had remarkable success in explaining the structure and functioning of the material world, but when it comes to the inner world of the mind science falls curiously silent. There is nothing in physics, chemistry, biology, or any other science that can account for our having an interior world. In a strange way, scientists would be much happier if there were no such thing as consciousness.

David Chalmers, professor of philosophy at the University of Arizona, calls this the “hard problem” of consciousness. The so-called “easy problems” are those concerned with brain function and its correlation with mental phenomena: how, for example, we discriminate, categorize, and react to stimuli; how incoming sensory data are integrated with past experience; how we focus our attention; and what distinguishes wakefulness from sleep.

To say these problems are easy is, of course, a relative assessment. Solutions will probably entail years of dedicated and difficult research. Nevertheless, given sufficient time and effort, we expect that these “easy problems” will eventually be solved.

The really hard problem is consciousness itself. Why should the complex processing of information in the brain lead to an inner experience? Why doesn’t it all go on in the dark, without any subjective aspect? Why do we have any inner life at all?

I now believe this is not so much a hard problem as an impossible problem–impossible, that is, within the current scientific worldview. Our inability to account for consciousness is the trigger that will, in time, push Western science into what the American philosopher, Thomas Kuhn, called a “paradigm shift.”

MosbyMarion · May 31, 2010, 12:48pm

Not sure what you think she was indicating.

How do you think those timeframes were determined?

Ok, I will. The text inside those [conjecture] tags was my wild mass guessing, and you are free to ignore it if you wish. Please do respond to the rest, however.

Yes, it does.

define: Observable

The height of a tree is observable. The measurements of fossils are observable. The presence of starlight is observable.

The origins of the universe are not observable. They can only be determined by inferential reasoning based on what is observable.

From whence derives this morality, since you do not believe in anything besides naturalistic evolution?

Once more, how do you think those dates were derived? Do you think the ancients kindly marked the dates on their work? Or do you think the people who dug them up started with an evolutionary framework (simple is old, deep is old, primitive is old, and humans must have evolved over the last 2 million years) and then dated the artifacts by where they fit in? What do you think allows archaeologists to determine the difference between a tool used by a primitive tribe in the 1800s with one used in the 5000 BCs? They are dated by the changes that take place over time in human craftmanship. How do you think the timeline of human craftmanship is derived? By the order of burial of artifacts, and by possibly flawed radiometric dating.

You are deciving yourself if you think the current opinions of archaeologists are so certain and unquestionable. A quick glance at history should refute that notion.

ksarmand · May 31, 2010, 4:43pm

I have been amusing myself. At any rate, this is besides the point, as you have been doing so also, while making venomous and incorrect generalizations. As a quick refresher, you have referred in a slanderous manner to theists in various posts:

[ul]“delusions of mindless belief” as your most standard way of referring to religion (found [here](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064894700-post125.html]here[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064894700-post125.html)</a>)
[]“religion teaches us haphazard, unquestionable thought and corrodes the intellect” (found [here](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064894860-post136.html]here[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064894860-post136.html)</a>)
[]“indoctrinates us to not engage in a continuous process of cognitive adaptation” (see link provided in second bullet)
[]“religion actively corrupts and destabilizes scientific dynamism and ingenuity” (see link provided in second bullet)
[]“Religious bodies are largely illiterate and unsophisticated regarding scientific endeavors” (see link in second bullet)
[]“concepts of sin and repentance and imbecilic adherence to statements within a holy book only disguises a pragmatic and clearheaded assessment of the reality inherent in our world.” (found [here](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064894860-post169.html]here[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064894860-post169.html)</a>)
[]cretinous, bogus claim (see above link)[/ul]

But I shall, as the laws were simply enumerations of civil statues that already existed. For instance, take [url=<a href=“http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM]this[/url”>http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM]this[/url</a>] from the Code of Hammurabi:

That is a civil statute allowing for societies to implement punishments against transgressors that threatened their stability, which is exactly what was in the majority of what you quoted.

I do not believe I have dismissed nor trivialized anything of what you posted - I have simply explained it as what it is. Do you claim, then, that you have not taken those quotes in isolation?

The Amalekites and Canaanites were political enemies, and the wars against them were not genocidal in nature. The fact that the Bible came from a patriarchal standpoint does not invalidate it as a whole. “Holy wars” as a means for evangelizing is not advocated anywhere; again, the wars against various enemies were ultimately political in nature. The toleration of the institute of slavery, while deplorable, also does not invalidate the text as a whole. To employ an analogy, would one say that the Constitution of the United States cannot be taken seriously nor adhered to as the law of the land because of the 3/5 Compromise, and that the judicial branch ought to be outlawed because of the Dred Scott decision? The “maiming” you speak of was punishment for crime or physical circumcision, the latter of which was later invalidated in the New Testament in multiple locations, namely in Romans 8:3-4. As for the punishment of crime, it was not until the modern age that we moved away from physical punishment and towards incarceration to ensure adherence to the law.

ksarmand · May 31, 2010, 5:41pm

Due to several unforeseen circumstances, I will be unable to respond to the rest of the opinions on this thread for the time being. A response is forthcoming.

Science-Religion. Which wins?

CONNECT WITH US