I wasn't even suggesting that those specific translations are what make you dislike Christianity. I was just stating my opinion about them. I both agree and disagree with what you say, since that could lead to personal biases entering your translation of the Bible, but the current translations of the Bible aren't necessarily trustworthy until proven to be so, and who best to prove them for yourself but yourself?
Religious beliefs are things that can only be proven in the future, just like the idea of me claiming to be changing my username. Eventually, they may be proven or disproven. Until then, it is a matter of belief. You can't prove Christianity currently, and you can't disprove Christianity currently. It's all a matter of belief. You believe that it's false; I believe that it's true. No amount of apologetics are ever going to be capable of swaying the beliefs until what is foretold in one of the religions becomes true. With Christianity, that would be the second coming of Christ, and with atheism, that would be an eternity of no massive religious events. Until something like that happens, none will be swayed by mere apologetics.
What I don't understand is this: why would you argue for something you are unsure of? If you do not know it to be true, then there's a very good chance that it's false. If it is false, then your entire argument is pointless at best, and entirely counterproductive at worst. Many people are like, "I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say I know what I say to be true," but, if you don't know what you say to be true, then your entire argument could be false. If you believe that everything you argue for could be false, then why would you argue for it? Figure it out for yourself before trying to figure it out for other people.
The way I debate depends on my certainty. If it's to the "outright truth" level, it usually looks as seen most often on IIN. I try to convince others of what I know for a fact.
Then there's the "strong speculation" level. For example, gravity is a function of curvature in spacetime, and mass affects said curvature. We've verified our understanding of gravity to the point of exhaustion, yet galaxies as a whole seem to behave as if they contain more mass than we visually observe.
This leaves two possibilities.
A: While we indeed 100% understand gravity locally, we've been oblivious to missing mathematical variables that only become apparent on certain scales, and gravity behaves differently in other areas.
B: There are no missing variables, gravity is behaving uniformly as we would expect, and there's actually no discrepancy as the missing mass is actually very much present but doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force. The gauge boson force carrier of this particular force is the photon (particle of light), so the missing mass is thusly visually invisible while gravitationally felt, the infamous "dark matter".
With current tech it doesn't seem we can overly decisively determine which is true for a while but there's a lot more supportive data for dark matter. So in these "strong speculation" situations I'm less attempting to convince anyone of anything so much as playing the Devil's advocate for the side I highly suspect will win out.
Then there were "guesses" (albeit educated ones). I don't even debate regarding these as they're dangerously close to the "belief" category. That said, I don't actually _believe_ my own guesses hereof so much as state that they're what I would guess if I had to. An example would be my guessing that the many worlds interpretation is correct. True randomness can't logically exist. So if wave functions are truly collapsing at apparent random and without any hidden variables to dictate the result, the likely explanation is that _all_ results happened and there was never a random _choice_ that had to be made, but there's no actual supportive data of this yet.
Then there are things I straight up don't know at all. For example, whatever the mother universe is, that which contains all budded universes and/or simulations, I have no idea if it would be digital or analogue.
I agree with much of what you've said but it isn't true that we have to verify religions in the future. Not everything is like the Book of Revelation; Christianity has already inaccurately described the past, often flying in the face of facts that fit my first, strongest category of certainty.
How has it inaccurately described the past, though? The only types of things that I've seen are like, "The armor that Goliath supposedly wore didn't actually exist at that point in history." I say, it could have existed at that point in history; you would have to have been around to know for certain.
I almost don't even know where to begin. To be honest, there's a much shorter list of events in the Bible that _were_ true or at least quite likely true. The majority, while sometimes interesting, is about like reading The Lord of the Rings or something.
The description of the creation of the Earth, the creation of humans, sexes, animals, the first civilizations, etc. is all at odds with reality. The only real escape from this is to allot so much symbolism that I could just as easily use to make any creation story true, and at that point it has nothing over any of the others or even something I made up myself.
I don't even think it's symbolic. I think that what a lot of people seem to forget about is the fact that God made the Garden of Eden on Earth. It never says in the story where He puts the animals that He created on Earth; it simply says that He created them all. It is certainly possible that every single animal variety to ever exist on Earth existed in the Garden of Eden first. We can neither prove nor disprove that theory, since humans have been banished from the Garden of Eden. How do you suggest that the order and method in which humans and genders were originally created has been proven contrary to that shown in the Bible? I ask the same question about the very first civilizations; civilizations that existed so long ago that almost every single relic we could have of them is gone.
There's oceans and mountains of evidence against it all.
The Y chromosome, which is what differentiates males from females, first showed up in placental mammals 180 million years ago. It was originally all but identical to the X chromosome but it gradually mutated, dropping the vast majority of its genes and keeping only ones that made those who inherited it quite different from their XX counterparts. While the X chromosome contains about one thousand genes, the Y chromosome went from containing about one thousand identical to genes to containing only about 20 genes, including the SRY gene which is responsible for testicular growth.
Given what we know about the formation of Earth, the notion of it being habitable within a week is absurd. It was still coalescing for millions of years.
If you take the Bible literally then you believe the Earth is somehow an infant compared to virtually any given rock on it. Radiometric dating has confirmed the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, like most of the solar system.
So, your evidence that humans are not a separate creation from animals is that some animals in the past have shared similar genes to humans? I'd say that's pretty weak evidence at best.
Something to note is the fact that this is the same book that says this:
"But this one thing be not ignorant of, my dearest, that *one day with our Lord is as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." - 2 Peter 3:8
What makes you so certain that these days are human days and not God days? Even if they are not days from God's perspective, the first 3 days possessed no solar bodies in order for measurement of the length of day, so those days could be far longer than the other 3. It is only on the third "day" (or whatever arbitrary equivalence to day it was) in which God made plants, which, if I'm not mistaken, are generally thought to have come before animals.
Like I said earlier, the amount of time the first 3 days, if not the first 6, are all debatable. Another thing of note is that the Bible never mentions how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. It was at least long enough for Adam to give names to all of the animals they found there.
Thoughts on cancel culture
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I wasn't even suggesting that those specific translations are what make you dislike Christianity. I was just stating my opinion about them. I both agree and disagree with what you say, since that could lead to personal biases entering your translation of the Bible, but the current translations of the Bible aren't necessarily trustworthy until proven to be so, and who best to prove them for yourself but yourself?
Religious beliefs are things that can only be proven in the future, just like the idea of me claiming to be changing my username. Eventually, they may be proven or disproven. Until then, it is a matter of belief. You can't prove Christianity currently, and you can't disprove Christianity currently. It's all a matter of belief. You believe that it's false; I believe that it's true. No amount of apologetics are ever going to be capable of swaying the beliefs until what is foretold in one of the religions becomes true. With Christianity, that would be the second coming of Christ, and with atheism, that would be an eternity of no massive religious events. Until something like that happens, none will be swayed by mere apologetics.
What I don't understand is this: why would you argue for something you are unsure of? If you do not know it to be true, then there's a very good chance that it's false. If it is false, then your entire argument is pointless at best, and entirely counterproductive at worst. Many people are like, "I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say I know what I say to be true," but, if you don't know what you say to be true, then your entire argument could be false. If you believe that everything you argue for could be false, then why would you argue for it? Figure it out for yourself before trying to figure it out for other people.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The way I debate depends on my certainty. If it's to the "outright truth" level, it usually looks as seen most often on IIN. I try to convince others of what I know for a fact.
Then there's the "strong speculation" level. For example, gravity is a function of curvature in spacetime, and mass affects said curvature. We've verified our understanding of gravity to the point of exhaustion, yet galaxies as a whole seem to behave as if they contain more mass than we visually observe.
This leaves two possibilities.
A: While we indeed 100% understand gravity locally, we've been oblivious to missing mathematical variables that only become apparent on certain scales, and gravity behaves differently in other areas.
B: There are no missing variables, gravity is behaving uniformly as we would expect, and there's actually no discrepancy as the missing mass is actually very much present but doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force. The gauge boson force carrier of this particular force is the photon (particle of light), so the missing mass is thusly visually invisible while gravitationally felt, the infamous "dark matter".
With current tech it doesn't seem we can overly decisively determine which is true for a while but there's a lot more supportive data for dark matter. So in these "strong speculation" situations I'm less attempting to convince anyone of anything so much as playing the Devil's advocate for the side I highly suspect will win out.
Then there were "guesses" (albeit educated ones). I don't even debate regarding these as they're dangerously close to the "belief" category. That said, I don't actually _believe_ my own guesses hereof so much as state that they're what I would guess if I had to. An example would be my guessing that the many worlds interpretation is correct. True randomness can't logically exist. So if wave functions are truly collapsing at apparent random and without any hidden variables to dictate the result, the likely explanation is that _all_ results happened and there was never a random _choice_ that had to be made, but there's no actual supportive data of this yet.
Then there are things I straight up don't know at all. For example, whatever the mother universe is, that which contains all budded universes and/or simulations, I have no idea if it would be digital or analogue.
I agree with much of what you've said but it isn't true that we have to verify religions in the future. Not everything is like the Book of Revelation; Christianity has already inaccurately described the past, often flying in the face of facts that fit my first, strongest category of certainty.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
How has it inaccurately described the past, though? The only types of things that I've seen are like, "The armor that Goliath supposedly wore didn't actually exist at that point in history." I say, it could have existed at that point in history; you would have to have been around to know for certain.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I almost don't even know where to begin. To be honest, there's a much shorter list of events in the Bible that _were_ true or at least quite likely true. The majority, while sometimes interesting, is about like reading The Lord of the Rings or something.
The description of the creation of the Earth, the creation of humans, sexes, animals, the first civilizations, etc. is all at odds with reality. The only real escape from this is to allot so much symbolism that I could just as easily use to make any creation story true, and at that point it has nothing over any of the others or even something I made up myself.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don't even think it's symbolic. I think that what a lot of people seem to forget about is the fact that God made the Garden of Eden on Earth. It never says in the story where He puts the animals that He created on Earth; it simply says that He created them all. It is certainly possible that every single animal variety to ever exist on Earth existed in the Garden of Eden first. We can neither prove nor disprove that theory, since humans have been banished from the Garden of Eden. How do you suggest that the order and method in which humans and genders were originally created has been proven contrary to that shown in the Bible? I ask the same question about the very first civilizations; civilizations that existed so long ago that almost every single relic we could have of them is gone.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
There's oceans and mountains of evidence against it all.
The Y chromosome, which is what differentiates males from females, first showed up in placental mammals 180 million years ago. It was originally all but identical to the X chromosome but it gradually mutated, dropping the vast majority of its genes and keeping only ones that made those who inherited it quite different from their XX counterparts. While the X chromosome contains about one thousand genes, the Y chromosome went from containing about one thousand identical to genes to containing only about 20 genes, including the SRY gene which is responsible for testicular growth.
Given what we know about the formation of Earth, the notion of it being habitable within a week is absurd. It was still coalescing for millions of years.
If you take the Bible literally then you believe the Earth is somehow an infant compared to virtually any given rock on it. Radiometric dating has confirmed the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, like most of the solar system.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
So, your evidence that humans are not a separate creation from animals is that some animals in the past have shared similar genes to humans? I'd say that's pretty weak evidence at best.
Something to note is the fact that this is the same book that says this:
"But this one thing be not ignorant of, my dearest, that *one day with our Lord is as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." - 2 Peter 3:8
What makes you so certain that these days are human days and not God days? Even if they are not days from God's perspective, the first 3 days possessed no solar bodies in order for measurement of the length of day, so those days could be far longer than the other 3. It is only on the third "day" (or whatever arbitrary equivalence to day it was) in which God made plants, which, if I'm not mistaken, are generally thought to have come before animals.
Like I said earlier, the amount of time the first 3 days, if not the first 6, are all debatable. Another thing of note is that the Bible never mentions how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. It was at least long enough for Adam to give names to all of the animals they found there.