News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

Evolution & religion can coexist, according to poll

Started by MrE2Me, March 20, 2007, 05:05:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

rdm

Quote from: "laetusatheos"
Quote from: "rdm"Perhaps. Is that an adult way to represent atheism? The claim for miracles in the Bible is quite irrelevant in this context. The believers' position, or a believers' position, is that Genesis 1-11 is allegory, and that real chronology starts with Abram. The atheist must deal with that claimed distinction, not the claims for miracles, unless the only aim is to debunk fundamentalists, which other believers have as their aim also. And if that distinction cannot be shown to be a false one, there is no purpose in invoking science or practical considerations onto what could be allegory. Earlier generations of atheists did not make fools of themselves by pressing this objection.

Quoterdm...the objection was to your claim that it was a real miracle
Where did you read that?

Quoteand your claim that you can know what was meant to be allegorical and what was not
Where did you read that?

Amazing, what people imagine.

Quotewhen few Christians seem to agree.
Most Christians agree with each other, as it happens.

QuoteIf you are going to leave the forum for over six months then return, you could at least return in a good mood.   :D Is it that long? But having one's words misrepresented is hardly what will make one's day.

rdm

Quote from: "Willravel"
Quote from: "rdm"The claim for miracles in the Bible is quite irrelevant in this context. The believers' position, or a believers' position, is that Genesis 1-11 is allegory, and that real chronology starts with Abram. The atheist must deal with that claimed distinction, not the claims for miracles, unless the only aim is to debunk fundamentalists, which other believers have as their aim also. And if that distinction cannot be shown to be a false one, there is no purpose in invoking science or practical considerations onto what could be allegory. Earlier generations of atheists did not make fools of themselves by pressing this objection.
QuoteHow about this: if Genesis 1-11 was an allegory, from whence did the allegory come?
The usual claim is that the Biblical stories were adaptations of existing myths from Babylonia and other regions.

Will

Quote from: "rdm"The usual claim is that the Biblical stories were adaptations of existing myths from Babylonia and other regions.
The Babylonians didn't yet exist when "the earth was formless and empty". Are you suggesting they made it up or that it was divinely inspired? We still end up with the same choices: either Genesis 1 doesn't mean anything as it was made up, or it was divinely inspired or requires some sort of supernatural interference.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

rdm

Quote from: "Willravel"
Quote from: "rdm"The usual claim is that the Biblical stories were adaptations of existing myths from Babylonia and other regions.
The Babylonians didn't yet exist when "the earth was formless and empty". Are you suggesting they made it up or that it was divinely inspired?
If you are incapable of using sentences without personal pronouns, don't bother posting to me.

Will

Quote from: "rdm"If you are incapable of using sentences without personal pronouns, don't bother posting to me.
The use of "you" was actually necessary to label the point and connect it to you.
If you're incapable of addressing my points, you may want to try a less subtle red herring in the future.

By the way, at the top of the page, you used "you" twice when addressing laetusatheos.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.