So you apparently think that the only type of thought is scientific thought, and the only type of statement is a scientific statement? The deductive principle of logic is unfalsifiable. Is it a non-statement? Is its validity irrelevant? It is hard to imagine you think it is, as you can't do math or science without it. By "non-statement", I meant the claim is irrelevant to reality. For example, I could claim that your green is really my red. We both describe light of 510m wavelength as "green", but we might perceive them differently. This claim is irrelevant. It is a "non-statement".
It is the equivalent of claiming that the claims of the Christian God are wrong because Jesus claimed in Matthew 5:13 that his followers were made of salt, but they are demonstrably not. If "salt" isn't literally "salt", then perhaps the the Flat Earth Theory is also correct. Perhaps "flat" isn't literally "flat". Perhaps "flat" means "roughly spherical".
Perhaps 6 days was really 4.5 billion years. Adam and Eve were actually single-cell lifeforms. Abraham and sons were really dinosaurs. Egypt was really Pangaea.
If you are allowed to reinterpret the Bible to fit modern scientific observations, then it's a meaningless book. You can do the same thing with any book, any movie, any song, anything... and it'll describe the nature of the Universe "perfectly".
Everyone has a different conception of reality itself. Yet there is only one objective reality. So some conceptions must therefore be closer to the truth and others further. Because all conceptions are different does not imply that there is not a reality. We all agree there is a reality. Your conception of reality is probably quite different from mine. But that doesn't mean you can make arbitrary claims about reality. If your claims are falsifiable, then you can demonstrate their validity with evidence. That's science. If your claims are unfalsifiable, then they're non-statements. The validity of the claims are irrelevant.
I contend that: 1. The claims of the existence of a "generic" deity (Spinoza's God) is a non-statement. This is a God that doesn't interfere with reality. This God is just a synonym for Nature. 2. The claims of the Judeo-Christian God is simply wrong. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the universe was not created as described in the Book of Genesis.
Have you ever performed the double-slit experiment? Circumnavigated the globe? Reconstucted Mendel's experiments? Taken position data for the various planets and proven that gravity is inversly proportional to the square of the distance? I don't expect you to personally find Noah's Ark in order to prove its existence. Just show me the evidence from any source.
I think you should drop the dumb "I don't believe things without evidence" meme. If that argument is a meme, then rationality is a meme. Labeling something does not make it so. Labeling atheism as a form of faith does not make it so.
I asked you to answer three well-known philosophical questions without falling back on the existance of a higher power. I find those questions irrelevant and tired. But since you insist, here are some short answers.
Freewill or the appearance of freewill is a consequence of quantum mechanics.
Morality and altruism can be explained by evolution.
I fully conceded that whether or not reality is merely a dream cannot be explained by science. But then again, postulating g a "higher power" doesn't answer any questions. Is this "higher power" merely a dream? Did he come from another reality? And is his reality also a dream?
But whereas I can answer those questions, you are unable to provide an atheistic alternative. Those are answers? How is "manifestation of the divine" different from "God did it"?
And now you're relegating a-theism to something "alternative"? So a non-belief in astrology is what? a-astrologistic alternative? Non-belief in fairies, a-fairistic alternative? Non-belief in spiderman, a-spidermanistic alternative? There is no evidence for any of these nonsense. For some reason, you don't feel the need to proof their non-existence. But you feel that the God of Abraham is somehow special and deserves a free pass.
I don't claim to know all the answers. I just don't believe things without evidence. Therefore, I contend that atheism is the default position, until evidence arises to proof otherwise.
I will contend that Deists have a simplier and more complete model of the universe. Of course deism is "simpler" and "more complete". The explanation for everything is "God did it". There are an infinite number of other appealing and philosophically "simple and complete" explanations, but that doesn't make them true.
Therefore, atheism has just as high a burden of proof as religion when it comes to philosophical as opposed to scientific principles. That is absurd. The burden on proof rests on those who make positive claims. Atheism makes no such claim. You are an atheist with respect to the Zeus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Clause, and the Tooth Fairy. But no one challenges you to provide proof of your atheism. No one suggests that you're a Tooth Fairy "denier". No one says that the non-believe in the Tooth Fairy is a matter of faith.
History tells us that today's God of Abraham is nothing more than tomorrow's Zeus. Some of us are just one step ahead of the rest.
Colors are different wavelengths of light, and can be measured. How would you propose we measure the existence of morality in a purely physical world? You can't measure color, only its corresponding wavelength. Similarly, you can't measure morality, but you can measure human well-being and suffering as consequences of morality.
We have to be careful with the distinction between a description of behavior that appears moral, and actual morality. This is no different from colors. Wavelengths appear as different colors, but there are no absolute colors. There is no way to know that your "green" isn't my "red". Furthermore, wavelengths are not the only plausible source of color perception. What is actual color and what merely appears to be color? Suppose a drug or something other medical technique causes the brain to "see" color. Is this actual color?
So in this environment, how would you go about deciding what is right and what is wrong? I don't know. And I don't think anyone knows. But I am firmly against using ancient texts as a basis for morality. The reason is simple. Much of what is said in these texts (Bible and Koran) is very immoral by today's standards. I believe morality is a human construct. It is real in terms of its consequences. But it doesn't exist in a physical sense. Morality is just a label to describe actions that lead to positive outcomes.
Morality is no different than the concept of beauty. To take this one step further, is there a distinction between things that appear beautiful and actual beauty?
I am simply claiming that morality exists Morality exists in the same way that colors exist. Through natural selection, the brain is wired for morality. The same process wired the brain to perceive different wavelengths of electro-magnetism as different colors. We don't argue that colors don't exists in a "materialistic" world.
But to answer your question, it is a question of faith, since there is no way to choose one explaination objectively. Atheism and Theism are not on equal footing. Theism makes extra unsupported claims. Atheism does not rule out any explanation, but simply assigns low probabilities to explanations offered without sufficient evidence. The default state of atheism is "I don't know". The default state of theism is "God or gods did it".
Atheism is the absence of faith, in the same way that asexual is the absence of sex. Atheism is not a type of faith, and asexual is not a type of sex.
Although sections contain both ancient history and ancient law, it is, in its entirety a religious book. That is, when understood correctly, it informs the reader about the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of the relationship between the two. How can a religious book be understood correctly? Everyone has a different interpretation. Everyone has a different (but one and only) path to heaven. No matter what you do, if you're destined for your heaven, you'll end up in someone else's hell.
And then there are other Books, each of which also claim to be the one and only true Book.
So back to your original question: the answer is "Yes, the Bible is all of these things, written through the lens of the contemporary writers of the day." So, in other words, it's open to interpretation? At least no one can claim to have the one true "correct" interpretation. Some people even have different Books. And if you don't agree with them, they will fly airplanes into your buildings.
If what I have posed is a false dichotomy, then where's your counter-example? Here's one:
Is there anything beyond the natural?
yes: ghosts can exist, angels can exist, God can exist, pretty much anything supernatural could exist, and so there is no morality.
no: then we're living in a strictly materialistic world.
There are good biological explanations for altruism and the evolution of morality. These behaviors are not unique to humans. They are observed in many species.
On the other hand, the theist explanation basically says you better be good or else god will punish you. Morality is merely a consequence of fear. People are moral only because they're being watched?
How do you know what's moral anyway? The Bible is not a good source of moral inspiration. The God of Abraham condones human sacrifice, rape, mass murder, slavery, etc. I'm not making this stuff up. It's all in the Old Testament. How anyone can point to the Bible as a moral guideline is beyond me.
This is not proof. All you said is your proof is equal to my proof, and then likely some implied fallback on Occam's Razor. But existence a higher power is unfalsifiable, which is the reason why it is religious belief and not scientific theory. Rational people can believe in both. What's wrong with invoking Occam's Razor? There are an infinte number of "rational" explanations for any phenomenon. How do you choose one explanation one over another?
And yes, I get just as upset when zealous fundamentalist Christians try to push their religious beliefs into science classrooms as by zealous Atheists try to push the scientific standards of proof into religion. I believe in both and, unless you get them confused, there is not much of a contradiction between the two. It is impossible to rationally reconcile the Bible (especially the Old Testament) with science. I presume then you don't interpret the Bible literally. Then what good is the Bible? Is it a history book? A science book? A how-to book? Or merely another work of fiction?
Unintentional death by falling : 57,760 (shot while climbing) Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 24,079 (shot while crossing a street) Unintentional Drowning : 13,739 (shot while swimming) Unintentional death by burning : 13,642 (shot while cooking) Unintentional Firearms deaths : 3,164 (shot twice) Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 3,099 (shot while cycling)
The military can only function if everyone follow orders. I don't like the war either, but that's not for the average soldier to decide.
If you want blame someone for the war, then blame Bush. Shame on Bush. Shame on the voters. Shame on the Republicans. Shame on Florida. Shame on the Supreme Court.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps 6 days was really 4.5 billion years. Adam and Eve were actually single-cell lifeforms. Abraham and sons were really dinosaurs. Egypt was really Pangaea.
If you are allowed to reinterpret the Bible to fit modern scientific observations, then it's a meaningless book. You can do the same thing with any book, any movie, any song, anything... and it'll describe the nature of the Universe "perfectly".
I contend that:
1. The claims of the existence of a "generic" deity (Spinoza's God) is a non-statement. This is a God that doesn't interfere with reality. This God is just a synonym for Nature.
2. The claims of the Judeo-Christian God is simply wrong. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the universe was not created as described in the Book of Genesis.
And now you're relegating a-theism to something "alternative"? So a non-belief in astrology is what? a-astrologistic alternative? Non-belief in fairies, a-fairistic alternative? Non-belief in spiderman, a-spidermanistic alternative? There is no evidence for any of these nonsense. For some reason, you don't feel the need to proof their non-existence. But you feel that the God of Abraham is somehow special and deserves a free pass.
I don't claim to know all the answers. I just don't believe things without evidence. Therefore, I contend that atheism is the default position, until evidence arises to proof otherwise.
History tells us that today's God of Abraham is nothing more than tomorrow's Zeus. Some of us are just one step ahead of the rest.
Morality is no different than the concept of beauty. To take this one step further, is there a distinction between things that appear beautiful and actual beauty?
Atheism is the absence of faith, in the same way that asexual is the absence of sex. Atheism is not a type of faith, and asexual is not a type of sex.
Is there anything beyond the natural?
yes: ghosts can exist, angels can exist, God can exist, pretty much anything supernatural could exist, and so there is no morality.
no: then we're living in a strictly materialistic world.
There are good biological explanations for altruism and the evolution of morality. These behaviors are not unique to humans. They are observed in many species.
On the other hand, the theist explanation basically says you better be good or else god will punish you. Morality is merely a consequence of fear. People are moral only because they're being watched?
How do you know what's moral anyway? The Bible is not a good source of moral inspiration. The God of Abraham condones human sacrifice, rape, mass murder, slavery, etc. I'm not making this stuff up. It's all in the Old Testament. How anyone can point to the Bible as a moral guideline is beyond me.
You left out the fine print.
Unintentional death by falling : 57,760 (shot while climbing)
Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 24,079 (shot while crossing a street)
Unintentional Drowning : 13,739 (shot while swimming)
Unintentional death by burning : 13,642 (shot while cooking)
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 3,164 (shot twice)
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 3,099 (shot while cycling)
The military can only function if everyone follow orders. I don't like the war either, but that's not for the average soldier to decide.
If you want blame someone for the war, then blame Bush. Shame on Bush. Shame on the voters. Shame on the Republicans. Shame on Florida. Shame on the Supreme Court.