Edmonton Christian school: LGBQT's have mental illnesses

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why would ancient Semitic people living in the Levant have any reason to write about such things? How would they have even known about dinosaurs, geological ages, outer space, and the biochemical processes of reproduction and species propagation? One cannot "ignore" nor "deny" things that she or he lacks the capacity to know.

Your incredulity at their ignorance is just as off-putting and absurd as the bilblicist's insistence on the scientific veracity of the Old Testament. Raising questions that scripture never intended to address is the other side of a flat, literalistic, hermeneutical coin.

I think that the standard theist that atheists run into are not of your persuasion TC. Clearly you and the group you run with have a far better understanding of the people and times during the supposed reign of JC. I admire that you own it and educate yourself, regardless of our positions.
I wish there was some way you could provide your understanding to the masses <unintended pun> so that all followers at least had an understanding of that era. That historicity is sorely lacking in the Christian faith, and I might add the Muslim faith as well, and that is why you are asked the direct questions by the many atheists on this board.
In daily life we do not get anything but the same old drivel when it comes to the dinosaurs/ark/walking on water/miracles/creating bread and wine/healing/born to a virgin/flying horses/splitting of the moon/crying palm trees/burning bush fables from the run of the mill faithful.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why would ancient Semitic people living in the Levant have any reason to write about such things? How would they have even known about dinosaurs, geological ages, outer space, and the biochemical processes of reproduction and species propagation? One cannot "ignore" nor "deny" things that she or he lacks the capacity to know.

Your incredulity at their ignorance is just as off-putting and absurd as the bilblicist's insistence on the scientific veracity of the Old Testament. Raising questions that scripture never intended to address is the other side of a flat, literalistic, hermeneutical coin.

Exactly my point I've been saying all along it's just nonesense written by ignorant people who's only explanation for the science and the world around them is magic, or the supernatural.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

Exactly my point I've been saying all along it's just nonesense written by ignorant people who's only explanation for the science and the world around them is magic, or the supernatural.

Except that the Bible is NOT comprised only of "nonsense written by ignorant people." The Bible is literature—and a fair amount of it is very good literature. How unfortunate that you are unable to see through your scientism to understand that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

Exactly my point I've been saying all along it's just nonesense written by ignorant people who's only explanation for the science and the world around them is magic, or the supernatural.

The fact that people from thousands of years ago weren't able to produce an accurate or scientifically sound explanation of the natural world is hardly a point worth making.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Except that the Bible is NOT comprised only of "nonsense written by ignorant people." The Bible is literature—and a fair amount of it is very good literature. How unfortunate that you are unable to see through your scientism to understand that.

You learn something new everyday. I had to look up the definition "scientism" cause I had literally never heard it before.

thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.

excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Seem like kind of a weird word. Who has excessive belief in scientific knowledge? Doesn't that go against how scientists study and practice?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Except that the Bible is NOT comprised only of "nonsense written by ignorant people." The Bible is literature—and a fair amount of it is very good literature. How unfortunate that you are unable to see through your scientism to understand that.

Is it "fictional" or "non-fictional" literature?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Is it "fictional" or "non-fictional" literature?

The Bible is a collection of all sorts of different types of literature written by different people over the course of long periods of time. There are several texts that are "non-fictional" by an appropriate understanding of how historiography functioned in the ancient world. For example, there were hundreds of years in the Iron Age in which Israel was ruled by the Davidic dynasty; there is no reason to question the historical veracity of the basic political and religious systems that were in place at the time.

Of course, there are also fictions. I think it is relatively safe to assume that everything written in Genesis is etymological fiction: stories featuring possibly actual people that had been passed by word of mouth for generations, but which contain massive embellishments intended to convey moralistic lessons or explanations about any manner of things.

The Bible is not a simple book; it is best understood for its complexities.

[Fuzz]

I take the Bible as mostly historical fiction melded with fables.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jayswin

You learn something new everyday. I had to look up the definition "scientism" cause I had literally never heard it before.



Seem like kind of a weird word. Who has excessive belief in scientific knowledge? Doesn't that go against how scientists study and practice?

I would say that having unrealistic expectations about what science is and what it can and cannot do is definitely an issue. Posts like Flames Gimp's betrays a belief that ONLY things that are known scientifically are relevant or important at the expensive of other forms of knowledge. Another poster, T@T, used to make a habit of disparaging anything to do with the arts and humanities as somehow tedious or entirely novel in the face of science.

My point is that excessive expectations and dependencies on any forms of knowledge or disciplines is not socially productive nor generally healthy.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would say that having unrealistic expectations about what science is and what it can and cannot do is definitely an issue. Posts like Flames Gimp's betrays a belief that ONLY things that are known scientifically are relevant or important at the expensive of other forms of knowledge. Another poster, T@T, used to make a habit of disparaging anything to do with the arts and humanities as somehow tedious or entirely novel in the face of science.

My point is that excessive expectations and dependencies on any forms of knowledge or disciplines is not socially productive nor generally healthy.

Aren't you conflating an academic appreciation for the bible with a religious appreciation of it?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would say that having unrealistic expectations about what science is and what it can and cannot do is definitely an issue. Posts like Flames Gimp's betrays a belief that ONLY things that are known scientifically are relevant or important at the expensive of other forms of knowledge. Another poster, T@T, used to make a habit of disparaging anything to do with the arts and humanities as somehow tedious or entirely novel in the face of science.

My point is that excessive expectations and dependencies on any forms of knowledge or disciplines is not socially productive nor generally healthy.

The problem I have with this perspective is that science is a continuous process of refining, expanding and upgrading the knowledge base of humanity. Whereas religious knowledge is pretty much static and limited to discussions (arguments) about interpretations of texts that are hundreds of years old (at best). Why people think that muddled Bronze Age texts compare to knowledge gained through the scientific method is confusing to me.

Is science the only path to knowledge? Of course not...is it the best path to useful knowledge about HOW things happen and what that means for our species?...yup.

Religious knowledge...is, at best, akin to philosophy and at worst fiction used to justify behaviour that may or not be compassionate.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The fact that people from thousands of years ago weren't able to produce an accurate or scientifically sound explanation of the natural world is hardly a point worth making.

but people today believe it...if that isn't accurate than why is the part about the existence of a god accurate? believer's pick and choose which part of the story is truth

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Except that the Bible is NOT comprised only of "nonsense written by ignorant people." The Bible is literature—and a fair amount of it is very good literature. How unfortunate that you are unable to see through your scientism to understand that.

I've never commented on quality of the literature, only the subject. So it's a well written fictional tale!

[Flames_Gimp]

so they were all ignorant to science and how the world worked so they had their own theories to explain the unknown, one of which a supernatural creator. Why does it make sense to believe a single "fact" from these ancient people thousands of years later now that science has answered most of the mysteries of the world ?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

so they were all ignorant to science and how the world worked so they had their own theories to explain the unknown, one of which a supernatural creator. Why does it make sense to believe a single "fact" from these ancient people thousands of years later now that science has answered most of the mysteries of the world ?

You do understand that there are literal truths and metaphorical truths, right? Every human culture in history has developed ways to tap into the unconscious, and given the remarkable degree of commonality in myths and motifs across cultures, there's every reason to believe they represent something innate in humanity.

[DuffMan]

Sounds like alternate facts.

[Hockey_Ninja]

Just read this thread title out loud to my mom. Her response "Maybe"......

[Red Slinger]

Religion is based on faith, sometimes even in the face of conflicting evidence.
Science and reason is based on evidence, despite preconceived notions or beliefs.

One of these things should be used to inform public policy and how we educated our children (even in a private school) and the other should not.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

Just read this thread title out loud to my mom. Her response "Maybe"......

and what was your response to her LOL?

[calgaryjohn87]

It is a dangerous life style. Look at the health stats.