The Atheism Thread - Part 7

[MrsKent26]

So the Louisiana state legislature wants to make the Bible the official state book. Anyone know if a state can do that? I'm sure the federal government couldnt declare it to be the national book.

http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/st...26e69567b2/LA--State-Book-Bible/#.U0cBa4XABix

Stuff like this makes me worry for humanity. Hopefully they can't do this because it would be one more step towards saying that religion is proper and people should be religious. Beliefs like this hold society back. People may have needed religion a long, long time ago when humans knew very little about the world they lived in. While there is still much we don't know, we know enough that we shouldn't have to resort to superstition and fantasy. Promoting the Bible like this would be a step back for that state.

 

[regwec]

On another note, Ive been reading the Quran. Specifically the Oxford World Classics english version. Its interesting to say the least. Im on Sura 40 Ghafir (The Forgiver).

Be sure to read Patricia Crone's textual criticism of it as a historical source. It will change the way you look at it.

 

[Marvolo]

Be sure to read Patricia Crone's textual criticism of it as a historical source. It will change the way you look at it.

Thanks for the suggestion. Ill check her stuff out.

 

[Rocketman]

Stuff like this makes me worry for humanity. Hopefully they can't do this because it would be one more step towards saying that religion is proper and people should be religious. Beliefs like this hold society back. People may have needed religion a long, long time ago when humans knew very little about the world they lived in. While there is still much we don't know, we know enough that we shouldn't have to resort to superstition and fantasy. Promoting the Bible like this would be a step back for that state.

I find myself falling in love with you more and more everyday.

 

[KevanG]

She's taken and I don't think you could compare to the love of an illegal alien.

 

[rodhulk]

I liked your post rodhulk it is very thoughtful and insightful. Though I do no believe in everything from the Bible believe it was divinely inspired. Hopefully people won't quickly dismiss your argument.

Hi.. and thanks, jaymes. My posts are actually for people such as yourself to whom it may reach. Thanks again for the encouraging words. All glory to the Lord. God bless.

 

[rodhulk]

I did no such thing, and I was planning on leaving this alone, but I really can't now.

I attempted to address your original comment, but you failed to recognize the attempt. When I responded to another one of your posts - a completely separate post, making a completely separate point - you used that as a basis upon which to discontinue the entire conversation.

I even went so far as to re-address your previous post in the most explicit manner possible.

I don't know why you have such a problem with discussing multiple subjects simultaneously (it seems to be common practice on message boards), but your objection was childish at best, and indicates not indignation at some imagined breach of etiquette, but an unwillingness to engage in intellectually honest discourse. It was quite obvious that you were ill-prepared to answer the questions I was asking.

This doesn't make you a bad guy, but to pretend that I was guilty of any sort of foul in this matter is entirely dishonest.

You're entitled to believe what you want. Like I said, I find you a nice guy but you have led me to believe that you're seriously only interested in your side. And I mentioned a while ago that I wasn't going to debate with you anymore, not at least for a while so if you choose to keep posting replies to me, you're more than welcome.

One quick point, you have gone into a much more in-depth take of the "families" that I spoke of. I generalized and simply showed that as a fact (not evidence that leads to "some" best conclusion), I'm yet to see any common ancestor for man and beast. Just variations in their kinds.

 

[KevanG]

One quick point, you have gone into a much more in-depth take of the "families" that I spoke of. I generalized and simply showed that as a fact (not evidence that leads to "some" best conclusion), I'm yet to see any common ancestor for man and beast. Just variations in their kinds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

This may be what you're looking for as it describes it in detail.

 

[Marvolo]

Pongo is the Orangutan, correct? And Pan is the chimps?

 

[KevanG]

That's right. If that's not what he wants to know then I'm out if ideas on what else to show.

 

[rodhulk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

This may be what you're looking for as it describes it in detail.

Yes. And thanks.

 

[Doctor Evo]

One quick point, you have gone into a much more in-depth take of the "families" that I spoke of. I generalized and simply showed that as a fact (not evidence that leads to "some" best conclusion), I'm yet to see any common ancestor for man and beast. Just variations in their kinds.

I've already pointed out the biggest problem with the concept of "kinds": the limitation implied by your argument has precisely zero basis in biological reality.

What you also fail to realize is that - if you subscribe to the belief that the story of Noah and the global flood is to be taken literally - the argument you've presented here is in fact entirely self-defeating.

 

[Thundercrack85]

So the Louisiana state legislature wants to make the Bible the official state book. Anyone know if a state can do that? I'm sure the federal government couldnt declare it to be the national book.

http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/st...26e69567b2/LA--State-Book-Bible/#.U0cBa4XABix

...what were the other candidates?

 

[MrsKent26]

I find myself falling in love with you more and more everyday.

She's taken and I don't think you could compare to the love of an illegal alien.

 

[KevanG]

The Quran and the Torah.

 

[childeroland]

What exactly is an 'official state book'?

 

[KevanG]

It's like an official state bird and about as useful.

 

[rodhulk]

I've already pointed out the biggest problem with the concept of "kinds": the limitation implied by your argument has precisely zero basis in biological reality.

What you also fail to realize is that - if you subscribe to the belief that the story of Noah and the global flood is to be taken literally - the argument you've presented here is in fact entirely self-defeating.

Hmmm... I just had an answer to you about the kinds but deleted when realizing how you aren't even willing to give me a chance on the second part of your post... your "self-defeating" statement on Noah and the flood that shows you've already made an opinion before we had a chance to talk about it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I wasn't aware states had state books. I've heard of birds, flowers, and most recently fossils.

This does kind of make me wonder what the other Bible Belt states are going to do for their state's book choice. The Narnia books?

 

[KevanG]

They haven't even decided what version of the bible to use. It's like the ones who want it think that their version is the only one that matters and there is no other one, despite knowing there's literally dozens of versions and translations that all have their own group backing them.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Hmmm... I just had an answer to you about the kinds but deleted when realizing how you aren't even willing to give me a chance on the second part of your post... your "self-defeating" statement on Noah and the flood that shows you've already made an opinion before we had a chance to talk about it.

It wouldn't be the first time a creationist has refused to debate an evolutionary biologist.

Of course, every time you raise this particular objection you reveal a staggering level of hypocrisy.

 

[Thundercrack85]

They haven't even decided what version of the bible to use. It's like the ones who want it think that their version is the only one that matters and there is no other one, despite knowing there's literally dozens of versions and translations that all have their own group backing them.

Well religious extremists are known for their tolerance and inclusiveness.

 

[redhawk23]

That's one thing I always found notable about Islam: While they allow for translations, study of the Quran is required to be done in the original language.

I know that's more difficult for the Bible, having been compiled from many different sources and several languages, but still, it is very strange to me to encounter American Fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the Literal Word of God but never take time to consider that it is a translation.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well there was that famous (if dubious quote) "English was good enough for Jesus".

The great irony is that a lot of these fundamentalists probably couldn't stand Jesus for reasons including his appearance (read: ethnicity), and views.

 

[Marvolo]

That's one thing I always found notable about Islam: While they allow for translations, study of the Quran is required to be done in the original language.

I know that's more difficult for the Bible, having been compiled from many different sources and several languages, but still, it is very strange to me to encounter American Fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the Literal Word of God but never take time to consider that it is a translation.

A rebuttal Ive encountered against the Bible being "The Word of God" is that we dont have the originals. The originals would have been the word of God. We have copies. We dont even have direct copies. We have the copies that were made from copies of lost copies of copies of copies. Saying our current copies are the word of god is next to meaningless because we cant check our copies against the originals to see if their are errors in the copies. And we know there likely is because our copies dont even match. Our copies arent the word of God unless your saying that God needs an editor and cant keep his **** straight.