The conversation has continued. To see the first part, click here.
K: I know the bible is true because I've lived with it, I've read it and every time it has proven itself true and alive to me. I know my Word and my God to be true, then everything that go against the truth in It is wrong.
The contradictions you pointed out aren't good examples because they both imply that He dies on a Shee-Shee, Friday as we know it, the day when the Sabbath started from 6 p.m.-6p.m. our time, John 19:14-16 and Mark 15:25 are talking about Shee-Shee, and Mark 14:12 is talking about Hah-Mee-Shee which is thursday, the day Jesus met with the disciples.
I believe most of science is based on untruths. However a lot of it is truth such as atoms, elements, physics and others.
So you believe emotions are chemical reactions, or processes in ones brain?
T:Every single verse in the bible has "proven itself true"? Tell me, how is it that a verse like II Kings 2:23-24 has proven itself to be true (that's the verse where the 2 she-bears maul 42 youths, one of my favourites)?
I think you've misunderstood the biblical contradiction with the passover - John clearly states that Jesus was arrested and crucified before the passover meal, and all of the other gospels contradict this. But you've made your point - you believe all of the bible, and I fear if we pursue the finer details of all of the contradictions we will just be quoting things at each other and neither of us will be convinced.
Here are a couple of questions you haven't commented on yet:
1. Even if you take the bible as completely true, how do you know your particular interpretation of James 1:17 (which is a very vague verse, in my opinion) is correct?
2. Even if you take your interpretation of James 1:17 as true, this does not imply that a universe that has no god would have no good - it just implies that in this universe, where you claim there is a god, there is no good that does not come from your god. This being the case, do you still believe that a world without a god would be full of evil, and if you do, why?
3. Why are believers in other religions, who believe in their holy book just as fervently as you (and give no justification for it, just as you don't), wrong? Do you just think the feeling you get about the bible is different from the one they get about their book, and so it must be right?
It's very unfortunate that you reject so much of science. I hope you pursue a better education in science at some point, because I think you are far too quick to dismiss a lot of very good science.
"So you believe emotions are chemical reactions, or processes in ones brain?" Yes. You can ask me more questions than one at a time, you know.
K:1. Yes there are many different translations, but all have their roots in the original Hebrew, or Greek text, and all mean the same, the reason that there is dispute between verses is because of misunderstanding, and yes I claim to understand this verse. Every gift He gives is good and perfect, not what I had said originally.
2. You asking me to imagine the world without God is like myself asking you to explain physics to me if science was not real, of course some people are going to come up with certain explanations, but they're not true, and it's not possible.
3. Jesus says in John 14:6 (from my Bible, not online) "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Jesus said He was the only way to come to KNOW("yada'" Hbrw. Recognition of truth through personal experience, and intimate relationship) the Father. So I believe Jesus is the only Way, not the ways other people describe.
I prefer one question at a time, so... did you know that I would give my life for you? Every real Christian would when it comes down to it. If I had to choose between my life and anyone else's, I would gladly give my life up for them. Not only because my God would want me to, but because I've come to love everyone (that I know of) and this means I love you. I care for you and what happens to your life.
T:1. I said interpretation, not translation. "Every gift He gives is good and perfect, not what i had said originally." This has a drastically different meaning than the actual quote, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows" and it is different from what you were originally claiming (which is that every good and perfect thing comes from above). It also still leads to ambiguity - what "gifts" are we talking about here? Is anything a gift, as you seemed to originally think, or only objects, or only things given from one person to another?
2. "You asking me to imagine the world without God is like myself asking you to explain physics to me if science was not real" There are many disanalogies here - for one, science is just a method of discovery, without which there would be no physics. I can explain physics theories (just not how they are come up with or supported) without science. A better analogy would be something like "Explain how science would work in a world where empirical inferences were not a valid way of attaining knowledge", to which I would reply "I don't know". Instead of saying you don't know, you claimed to know how the world would be, failed to support why the world would be this way, and contradicted yourself repeatedly.
3. So basically, the bible is true because it says it is. If you were brought up in a different religion, you would defend it in the same way as you defend Christianity now.
4. You haven't answered one of the questions posed in my last reply, so here it is again: You claim that the bible has proven itself to be true to you. I asked how every single verse could have possibly proven itself to be true, particularly a verse like II Kings 2:23-24.
It's easier to die for someone (or something) than to live for them. You claim you would die for me, or someone like me, yet do you give every cent you own to Unicef? Surely your money is worth less than your life. Did you know that for about every $200 given to Unicef, a life is saved?
Reflection
The conversation has, in my opinion, greatly deteriorated at this point and I don't think I can go any further with it. I wanted to try to understand a theist's perspective, but this theist went from being a bit ignorant (which is fine - I'm ignorant too) to being utterly dogmatic. I don't expect him to justify why he believes the bible when the bible says it is true, yet I can't help asking more questions. I am honestly curious how he could possibly justify and believe certain things.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
One abortion is not a threat to mental health
...according to this article.
This research completely contradicts what many pro-life organizations claim (usually without anything resembling evidence).
I found this amusing, as the pro-life group on my campus (Students for Life) often holds events in which they invite women who have had abortions and regretted it. They make it sound like getting an abortion ruined their lives, yet apparently they are no more likely to be depressed than if they hadn't had their abortion. Whether you want to keep a pregnancy or not is a choice, and like any choice, sometimes some people will have regrets. I doubt many people have abortions without thinking about it first. The Students for Life are really just trying to appeal to emotion to push their agenda.
This research completely contradicts what many pro-life organizations claim (usually without anything resembling evidence).
I found this amusing, as the pro-life group on my campus (Students for Life) often holds events in which they invite women who have had abortions and regretted it. They make it sound like getting an abortion ruined their lives, yet apparently they are no more likely to be depressed than if they hadn't had their abortion. Whether you want to keep a pregnancy or not is a choice, and like any choice, sometimes some people will have regrets. I doubt many people have abortions without thinking about it first. The Students for Life are really just trying to appeal to emotion to push their agenda.
Correspondance with a Young Theist
From time to time, I get comments on things I wrote and posted on the internet long ago. One of the most commented things I have ever posted is a (very teenager-like) rant against Christianity. As you can guess, I get a lot of very mixed feedback. I won't post the link here, mainly out of embarrassment that I wrote something which seems so infantile to me now (I wonder how I will look at these blog posts in a few years).
I would like to relate a bit of the ongoing conversation I have been having with a young (~16) theist, sparked by his initial comment on my rant. I don't want to post the entire conversation here (as it is quite long and many of his comments are hard to understand), so I will just try to concisely write the main points of the conversation in a more readable style, occasionally copying and pasting from the original conversation (as such, much of this conversation is not as it originally appeared. I have been as charitable as possible and the purpose of this is not to make fun of my fellow converser). Messages by me will be denoted with T and messages by my fellow converser will be denoted with K.
The Conversation
K: I'm sorry for the way that Christianity has presented itself to you. I'm sorry for all the bad that it's done. I'm sorry we have led people to believe Christianity is a religion, as it isn't - it is a relationship with God. God loves you. If there is anything I can do for you, please let me know.
T: There are two things you can do for me.
1. Do something good, like donate to Unicef or volunteer at a soup kitchen. But do it without thinking about your god. Don't do it to score points towards heaven. Do it because you want to do something good.
2. Imagine, for a second, that there is no god. Honestly reflect on this, and get back to me with your thoughts.
K: I can't do something good without doing it for my god. The reason I do good is because of God's love which I feel. When I felt it, I wanted to do good. If you felt it you would never want to do another injustice again. I'll get back to you with my thoughts based on your second request.
T: Strange that you claim that after feeling god's love you wouldn't want to do another injustice, as when it is put to the test, atheists are just as likely to help/ignore the needy as Christians (i.e. see the study by Curlin entitled "Do Religious Physicians Disproportionately Care for the Underserved?", published in Ann Fam Med 2007; 5: 353-360).
K: Many people call themselves Christians, but few will choose to follow Christianity as the life style. I thought about the possibility that my God doesn't exist and I'm assuming the big bang theory would be His replacement. If it happened that way then the earth would be completely consumed with evil, all of our choices would be evil, we couldn't know what good or perfect is, and that doesn't sound very nice.
T: How would the big bang be the replacement for your god? The big bang theory is basically a description of the rapid expansion of our universe within the first few moments of our its existence. It is also a very well supported theory, so if the big bang is mutually exclusive with your god for some reason, it seems much more justifiable to believe in the big bang.
Why would the world be consumed with evil if there was no god?
K: Sorry, I meant evolution, not the big bang theory. I do not believe in evolution. The world would be consumed with evil if there was no god because my god is every good and perfect thing, so without him there would be no good and all that would be left is evil.
T: I'm not sure I understand you when you say you don't believe in evolution - are you simply unaware of the evidence for evolution, or do you think there is some sort of giant scientist evolution conspiracy? Regardless, I suggest you read something by Ken Miller, he is both a theist and an evolutionary biologist so perhaps he will appeal to you.
Saying that your god is every good and perfect thing is quite vague and I quite frankly have no idea what it means. Is a cold drink on a hot day god? Is giving to charity god? Even if you believe that your god is every good and perfect thing in this universe, how do you know that in a universe without your god there would be no good?
K: "Every good and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17). This is why I believe that every good thing comes from god.
T: The bible isn't exactly a book I think you should be accepting everything from uncritically - it endorses genocide and slavery. Are you sure that all of it is the true word of your god?
K: I've been wanting someone for awhile now to tell me where God ordains or asserts, in the Bible, humans owning other humans.
T: Well, it's pretty clear the author of Leviticus doesn't have a problem with slavery - the only problem with it if you beat your slave so hard that he/she dies within a day or two hours. If the slave dies after that it's okay:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
K: True, slavery was condoned, but it wasn't a race issue, it could be anyone, and they had to consent to be sold. Did you see the next verses
26 If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.
T: So it's fine if I beat my slave, but not if I break any teeth? Come on. You think that makes it better? The verse I quoted explicitly states that it is okay if you beat your slave because they are your property. I don't see how putting regulations on not breaking a couple of parts of the body makes this better.
Also, slavery was a race issue in the bible - foreigners were treated differently under the bible's slavery laws (see Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:2-6 NLT). Also, since Canaan and all of his descendants were cursed to be slaves those of a particular ancestry are (for some strange reason that makes no sense to me) cursed to be slaves.
Back to my original point, the bible contains things that are false. If you don't accept that certain parts are wrong, you have to throw away much of modern science. All I am saying is, don't take everything from the bible uncritically, since there are obvious examples where it contains things that are less than true. This being the case, and interpretation being another issue, why do you assume that there would be no good if there was no god based entirely on your interpretation of a single passage?
K: I believe everything in the Bible true, and I know it is true. Whether or not you say I can't, I still know.
The creation story doesn't negate all of modern science, Christians believe God made certain things the way they are in the scientific realm, but you're right the creation story completely negates all of evolution.
T: How do you know everything in the bible is true?
Why are those of other religions, who also claim to just "know" their holy book is true, wrong?
Do you also believe the parts of the bible that contradict each other (to pick one example of many, was Jesus crucified the day before passover as in John 19:14-16, or the day after as in Mark 14:12, Mark 15:25?)?
If you believe the creation story to be true, you have to believe that the foundation of modern biology is wrong. If you believe there actually was a giant flood, you have to think that geologists' methods of doing just about anything are just completely wrong. If you think the world is only a few thousands of years old, you have to believe that chemistry, astronomy, and geology (once again) are all mistaken... In other words, you have to give up much of modern science.
I'm curious, though, how do you rationalize biology being so wrong about something they are so sure about? Do you think evolutionary theory is some sort of conspiracy, are biologists just fabricating all the evidence for it, or are biologists all just plain wrong?
That is it. If the conversation gets interesting again I may post another entry about it.
Reflection
I pursued this conversation in order to try to get a better understanding of this theist's perspective. Sometimes it's difficult to relate to someone with so radically different a world-view. I am impressed with the theist's willingness to engage and continue in a discussion, and I came to like him. I feel kind of bad for him, it seems like he has had some very uncritical role models.
The one thing that really stuck out in the conversation was when he claimed to just know that everything in the bible is true. Obviously, if this were a debate, that would be a pointless claim - it would be like announcing that you know you are right, and expecting that to be a valid point. However, this is not a debate. It is a conversation, and perhaps I should just take that announcement as him shutting down the discussion - he is basically saying that his belief in the bible needs no justification, so there is no point in me questioning it. I was just too curious to leave it at that, and I am eagerly waiting his reply to my last comment in which I try to explore this a little further.
I am interested to know how he will respond to the contradictions in the bible (I assume, since he has already claimed that everything in the bible is true, that he will try to claim they are not really contradictions). It will also be interesting to see how he responds to the fact that other people of other faiths believe just as firmly as he does in their holy books.
I would like to relate a bit of the ongoing conversation I have been having with a young (~16) theist, sparked by his initial comment on my rant. I don't want to post the entire conversation here (as it is quite long and many of his comments are hard to understand), so I will just try to concisely write the main points of the conversation in a more readable style, occasionally copying and pasting from the original conversation (as such, much of this conversation is not as it originally appeared. I have been as charitable as possible and the purpose of this is not to make fun of my fellow converser). Messages by me will be denoted with T and messages by my fellow converser will be denoted with K.
The Conversation
K: I'm sorry for the way that Christianity has presented itself to you. I'm sorry for all the bad that it's done. I'm sorry we have led people to believe Christianity is a religion, as it isn't - it is a relationship with God. God loves you. If there is anything I can do for you, please let me know.
T: There are two things you can do for me.
1. Do something good, like donate to Unicef or volunteer at a soup kitchen. But do it without thinking about your god. Don't do it to score points towards heaven. Do it because you want to do something good.
2. Imagine, for a second, that there is no god. Honestly reflect on this, and get back to me with your thoughts.
K: I can't do something good without doing it for my god. The reason I do good is because of God's love which I feel. When I felt it, I wanted to do good. If you felt it you would never want to do another injustice again. I'll get back to you with my thoughts based on your second request.
T: Strange that you claim that after feeling god's love you wouldn't want to do another injustice, as when it is put to the test, atheists are just as likely to help/ignore the needy as Christians (i.e. see the study by Curlin entitled "Do Religious Physicians Disproportionately Care for the Underserved?", published in Ann Fam Med 2007; 5: 353-360).
K: Many people call themselves Christians, but few will choose to follow Christianity as the life style. I thought about the possibility that my God doesn't exist and I'm assuming the big bang theory would be His replacement. If it happened that way then the earth would be completely consumed with evil, all of our choices would be evil, we couldn't know what good or perfect is, and that doesn't sound very nice.
T: How would the big bang be the replacement for your god? The big bang theory is basically a description of the rapid expansion of our universe within the first few moments of our its existence. It is also a very well supported theory, so if the big bang is mutually exclusive with your god for some reason, it seems much more justifiable to believe in the big bang.
Why would the world be consumed with evil if there was no god?
K: Sorry, I meant evolution, not the big bang theory. I do not believe in evolution. The world would be consumed with evil if there was no god because my god is every good and perfect thing, so without him there would be no good and all that would be left is evil.
T: I'm not sure I understand you when you say you don't believe in evolution - are you simply unaware of the evidence for evolution, or do you think there is some sort of giant scientist evolution conspiracy? Regardless, I suggest you read something by Ken Miller, he is both a theist and an evolutionary biologist so perhaps he will appeal to you.
Saying that your god is every good and perfect thing is quite vague and I quite frankly have no idea what it means. Is a cold drink on a hot day god? Is giving to charity god? Even if you believe that your god is every good and perfect thing in this universe, how do you know that in a universe without your god there would be no good?
K: "Every good and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17). This is why I believe that every good thing comes from god.
T: The bible isn't exactly a book I think you should be accepting everything from uncritically - it endorses genocide and slavery. Are you sure that all of it is the true word of your god?
K: I've been wanting someone for awhile now to tell me where God ordains or asserts, in the Bible, humans owning other humans.
T: Well, it's pretty clear the author of Leviticus doesn't have a problem with slavery - the only problem with it if you beat your slave so hard that he/she dies within a day or two hours. If the slave dies after that it's okay:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
K: True, slavery was condoned, but it wasn't a race issue, it could be anyone, and they had to consent to be sold. Did you see the next verses
26 If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.
T: So it's fine if I beat my slave, but not if I break any teeth? Come on. You think that makes it better? The verse I quoted explicitly states that it is okay if you beat your slave because they are your property. I don't see how putting regulations on not breaking a couple of parts of the body makes this better.
Also, slavery was a race issue in the bible - foreigners were treated differently under the bible's slavery laws (see Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:2-6 NLT). Also, since Canaan and all of his descendants were cursed to be slaves those of a particular ancestry are (for some strange reason that makes no sense to me) cursed to be slaves.
Back to my original point, the bible contains things that are false. If you don't accept that certain parts are wrong, you have to throw away much of modern science. All I am saying is, don't take everything from the bible uncritically, since there are obvious examples where it contains things that are less than true. This being the case, and interpretation being another issue, why do you assume that there would be no good if there was no god based entirely on your interpretation of a single passage?
K: I believe everything in the Bible true, and I know it is true. Whether or not you say I can't, I still know.
The creation story doesn't negate all of modern science, Christians believe God made certain things the way they are in the scientific realm, but you're right the creation story completely negates all of evolution.
T: How do you know everything in the bible is true?
Why are those of other religions, who also claim to just "know" their holy book is true, wrong?
Do you also believe the parts of the bible that contradict each other (to pick one example of many, was Jesus crucified the day before passover as in John 19:14-16, or the day after as in Mark 14:12, Mark 15:25?)?
If you believe the creation story to be true, you have to believe that the foundation of modern biology is wrong. If you believe there actually was a giant flood, you have to think that geologists' methods of doing just about anything are just completely wrong. If you think the world is only a few thousands of years old, you have to believe that chemistry, astronomy, and geology (once again) are all mistaken... In other words, you have to give up much of modern science.
I'm curious, though, how do you rationalize biology being so wrong about something they are so sure about? Do you think evolutionary theory is some sort of conspiracy, are biologists just fabricating all the evidence for it, or are biologists all just plain wrong?
That is it. If the conversation gets interesting again I may post another entry about it.
Reflection
I pursued this conversation in order to try to get a better understanding of this theist's perspective. Sometimes it's difficult to relate to someone with so radically different a world-view. I am impressed with the theist's willingness to engage and continue in a discussion, and I came to like him. I feel kind of bad for him, it seems like he has had some very uncritical role models.
The one thing that really stuck out in the conversation was when he claimed to just know that everything in the bible is true. Obviously, if this were a debate, that would be a pointless claim - it would be like announcing that you know you are right, and expecting that to be a valid point. However, this is not a debate. It is a conversation, and perhaps I should just take that announcement as him shutting down the discussion - he is basically saying that his belief in the bible needs no justification, so there is no point in me questioning it. I was just too curious to leave it at that, and I am eagerly waiting his reply to my last comment in which I try to explore this a little further.
I am interested to know how he will respond to the contradictions in the bible (I assume, since he has already claimed that everything in the bible is true, that he will try to claim they are not really contradictions). It will also be interesting to see how he responds to the fact that other people of other faiths believe just as firmly as he does in their holy books.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Freedom2Measure
Sorry for the total lack of blogging in the last little while. Between exams, being in another country, and moving, I haven't remembered to put something up on here. So without further ado, here is the absurdity of the day: this site defends the use of the imperial measurement system based on it being part of America's heritage (so is using pen and paper instead of computers, if by "heritage" you mean something you did for a long time in your history), claims that the base-10 scheme of the metric system isn't better than the inconsistently base 12 and 16 of the imperial system, and to top it off calls the metric system sexist. There are plenty of other absurdities in there, I suggest reading through some of it, it's quite amusing.
It's really obvious that the people who made the site are just used to the imperial system, and mistake their familiarity with the system with superiority over the metric system.
It's really obvious that the people who made the site are just used to the imperial system, and mistake their familiarity with the system with superiority over the metric system.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Put it where all can see...
Now you can declare your ignorance with your very own Laminin t-shirt!
For those who have no idea what is going on, check this out.
For those who have no idea what is going on, check this out.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Why care what the crazies think?
A sentiment that I often hear which I often hear is that we shouldn't care what the crazy people think. At a presentation last year that the Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers of Waterloo held about Intelligent Design, members of the audience (mainly unsympathetic towards Intelligent Design "theory") posed several questions asking why we should care if people believe in Intelligent Design. "Shouldn't we just let them believe what they want? We know they're wrong, so why care?"
I've heard a similar sentiment from many of my friends and acquaintances. Of course around me, the subject often comes up, and it is interesting to see how many people say "I don't really care what people believe", or something similar.
Now I think it is expected that, at this point in the blog entry, I start ranting about how we should care about what others think since beliefs guide actions, and actions have effects on all sorts of things. Let me be a bit more careful than that.
I think at the base of it, people are afraid of being impolite. It is generally impolite to tell people they are wrong on something that is very important to them. If you are sitting around with some people you don't know well, and one mentions that they read their horoscope everyday, it is very difficult to tell them their beliefs are silly without sounding like a jackass. The person you are correcting will probably think you're mean regardless of how diplomatically you approach the subject. It's usually more diplomatic to not mention how stupid their beliefs are, and you are seen as a nicer person for it.
When you start questioning those dogmas and superstitions, you're usually seen as overly confrontational and uncompassionate. By "not caring" about others beliefs you are almost always seen as a nicer person, and that's why I think so many people say that they don't care. It's much more socially acceptable to not care.
But what other people believe matters (to me, this is obvious). It influences politics, it influences the culture, it influences the people close to them. You should speak up, because you, too, can have an influence. But if you keep your mouth shut, it is only the beliefs of others that are having a real effect.
Being polite is nice, and no one likes someone who is unnecessarily impolite, but always being polite to the exclusion of making yourself heard is just cowardly. I will always respect an impolite opinionated person over a polite person who is scared to take a stance on anything.
I've heard a similar sentiment from many of my friends and acquaintances. Of course around me, the subject often comes up, and it is interesting to see how many people say "I don't really care what people believe", or something similar.
Now I think it is expected that, at this point in the blog entry, I start ranting about how we should care about what others think since beliefs guide actions, and actions have effects on all sorts of things. Let me be a bit more careful than that.
I think at the base of it, people are afraid of being impolite. It is generally impolite to tell people they are wrong on something that is very important to them. If you are sitting around with some people you don't know well, and one mentions that they read their horoscope everyday, it is very difficult to tell them their beliefs are silly without sounding like a jackass. The person you are correcting will probably think you're mean regardless of how diplomatically you approach the subject. It's usually more diplomatic to not mention how stupid their beliefs are, and you are seen as a nicer person for it.
When you start questioning those dogmas and superstitions, you're usually seen as overly confrontational and uncompassionate. By "not caring" about others beliefs you are almost always seen as a nicer person, and that's why I think so many people say that they don't care. It's much more socially acceptable to not care.
But what other people believe matters (to me, this is obvious). It influences politics, it influences the culture, it influences the people close to them. You should speak up, because you, too, can have an influence. But if you keep your mouth shut, it is only the beliefs of others that are having a real effect.
Being polite is nice, and no one likes someone who is unnecessarily impolite, but always being polite to the exclusion of making yourself heard is just cowardly. I will always respect an impolite opinionated person over a polite person who is scared to take a stance on anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
