almost all religions are not just a set of morals, they also assert that their gods intercede in the physical world, and they continue to provide alternative explanations for physical phenomena that include supernatural components.

But even the morals are dubious. Why should we entertain the moral codes of vanished civilizations? There are no ethics in the bible that are of actual value that cannot be found outside of the bible without all the voodoo nonsense the bible insists on.

Most religious thought is childish. That is not mockery, it is a fact.

Yes, your position does rest on ignoring any but a literal reading of the Bible. In that, you find commonality with most religious literalists.

Interesting is it not, that you reject what they also reject, but for the opposite reasons.

And substitutes an imagined "interpretation" that is what the interpreter wishes the text said.

Psalm 137 says, "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Now, that seems pretty straightforward to me, especially since killing your enemies' babies was a common practice in ancient times.

But "No!" says the non-literalist, it can't mean what it seems to mean, that would be just too cruel and literal for our delicate modern ears. So it must mean something else. Let's think now. Maybe it means we'll just cuddle those babies so they grow up to be nice guys and gals. Maybe it means the enemies, in their wickedness, will dash their own infants on the rocks. Maybe it just means their intellectual babies, those horrible ideas those enemies have of trying to oppose God.

Whatever. Doesn't really matter how we interpret it, as long as that interpretation is inconsistent with the actual text. Because the actual text is as immoral as it gets in our world.

Patriotism is as immoral as it gets in our world.

A firm stand against baby-killing, such as most of us have in 2018, is not found in the Bible. We can deal with the text as it is, or get our morality from somewhere else and reinterpret the text to fit what we already think. But if you need to reinterpret the text to match modern morality, where did modern morality come from?

And explain to me how what was acceptable then is acceptable now. And explain how a country that is willing to use nuclear devices epitomizes modern morality. And the essential difference between modern and ancient morality.

It says whoever dashes babies against rocks will be happy. Yes we dropped a big bomb on civilians, but we weren't happy about it, we just believed it was the best way to end a terrible war that had already killed many millions more. And we resolved to never do such a thing again.

Until Trump that is, now we are not so sure. But at least we recognize that he is turning his back on the international consensus since WWII and many of us are not happy about it. And the Japanese themselves never thought to seek revenge. Back in 550 BC, baby-killing, looting, revenge was all part of the fun. They killed our babies, we hope to kill their babies.

There is a difference. If Psalm 137 said, "Happy is he who saves his enemies babies from the rocks," it would stand as an enlightened morality for all times, even if imperfectly followed. But it doesn't say that, yet I assume that you today, in 2018 (not 1945 or 550 BC), would agree with the restatement. If this were 1945, I'd assume you think killing babies was an unfortunate necessity and if this were 550 BC, I'd assume you think it's something you do whenever you can. So, assuming you think killing enemy babies is evil, where did you get that idea? Because you sure didn't get it from reading Psalm 137, unless you figuratively torture the text into non-literal submission.

What was Nagasaki, other than a field test of a different type of atomic device?

Atomic mass murder is more of a hands off technique. And, many Americans were and are still happy about the use, claiming without evidence that it saved lives. US lives that is.

Yes, modern man is far more humane indeed.

is more apropos as "childLIKE" denotes simplicity and innocence. Faith is not complicated. On the other hand, "childISH" applies to adults who behave in a silly and immature manner.

The rest is just debate.

is required for literalists on both sides of the faith/non-faith argument.

You just have to understand what both truly are.

But I agree with you.

I believe in the Creator, the message of Jesus, and evolution.

Palestine approximately 2000 years ago, was executed, got resurrected, walked around a bit longer and then disappeared?

As to the rest, faith is required, and faith is what I have.

overlap the allegedly non-overlapping magisteria of science and religion. You are making a claim about the factual character of the natural world, not about human purposes, meanings, and values.

You likely also hold beliefs about consciousness in humans that again intrude into the scientific "magisteria".

Which is why noma is bullshit.

What's your stance on abiogenesis? Also, how did your creator come into being?

And I will not speculate as to your questions.

It's all metaphorical, and the bits that aren't, you refuse to discuss.

There's the answer to your question.

It is answered quite succinctly. The extent that religion treads on science is the extent that NOMA is rubbish.

Hence, some people's declarations about a certain popular astrophysicist.

If theists stayed away from science, the NOMA argument would hold. But theists simply cannot shut their yaps about how scientists are somehow wrong. And that's the way it's been for centuries.

But theists somehow only want scientists to shut up about religion, while they continue to make outrageous pronouncements about scientists.

No! There is no NOMA, and scientists should continue to gleefully tread over the line to ridicule the theists' hollow claims.

Is shut down with "literalist" but a majority of Christians do take it literally. Almost as if someone is supplanting their beliefs and views for the majority of Christians...

Theists just cannot keep their fingers out of the pi.

And it trends downhill from there.

And theists have been doing just that for fucking centuries!

That is my position. And the theist position is something, mumble-mumble, that Neil deGrasse Tyson is somehow treading outside his discipline.

There's something about casting the first stone that I read somewhere.

Methodological naturalism, the scientific method, is how to know about the universe. Theism is how to make shit up about the universe. Whenever a theist says anything about science, they are likely lying. And they have a tendency to malign scientists who express themselves. Hence, the deGrasse Tyson ploy.

Theism is wholeheartedly against methodological naturalism. And they have been doing such for centuries.

Gould -- I love him -- was wrong. No NOMA as long as theists continue treading across the boundary, which they inevitably do.

That about sums it up.

because it involves accepting there are no holy miracles, resurrections, life after death, heaven etc. It can work with religion as a moral philosophy, but it means chucking out the supernatural stuff. Jesus has to be just a man, not a god, and so therefore not 'anointed'.

NOMA states that the areas dealt with are different. The rest is your framing.

Christians believe Jesus was anointed by God, by definition. It involves an interventionist supernatural being. At least one.

Saying that Jesus could literally walk on water is a claim about whether that is even possible. If that "miracle" was only a metaphor, then the "event" never really happened, right?

I am serious, I want to know if you believe he actually did it or was it just a metaphor?

Thanks in advance!

You appear to. That does not in any way obligate me to do so.

process wherein you define religion so you can more effectively argue on your preferred grounds. As long as you understand it, and your motivation.

Last edited Tue Jan 2, 2018, 10:55 AM - Edit history (1)

I understand it, and my motivation. You apparently do not understand my motivation.

You are free to use an appeal to authority as an argument. We're free to reject that argument.

non-literal for whom among us is perfect enough to decide what is literal and non-literal??

The universe is changing every second so the creation is ever changing, it is not finished yet

and the next obvious question get deflected with the force of a thousand hurricanes.

Perhaps at that point the Creator will restart the process.

The Creator, (the Words of The Word) Jesus, the Christ and Evolutionary Creationism.

Science is intelligent life acting in the image and likeness of the Creator. Jesus is the living example for us all. If we fail to live up to that example, that is a sign of our human fallibility. But it is the attempt that defines us.

We are all, ALL, created in the 'likeness' of The Creator, but to assume His IMAGE, we, with fervent and honest attempt strive to live up to the example of The Christ.

Orthodox name it 'theosis'. A process whereby we become 'like' God, not 'become' God.

You are appreciated! 💜

And if we fall short as believers, we can make another attempt.

As soon as a religion, any religion, has to resort to using the supernatural as the explanation for the cause of anything it fails. How did the universe begin? "God created it from nothing." Most creation myths from religions begin pretty much the same way. There is the whole problem from the start. Especially the more we learn and the more the reality of multiple universes becomes clear and accepted. Theists resort to a God as the beginning of things and are certain about their explanation. Where science resorts to real, observable, predictable facts and when science doesn't have a good answer scientists admit it. Then they search even harder for an answer. They do not just exclaim "Because God made it that way." Theists, on the other hand, dig in and rest on their ignorance. Frequently theists not only stand behind their ignorance they feel that everyone else in the world should agree with them and share in their ignorance. To the point of violently forcing their view upon others.

How old is the earth? "Six to ten thousand years." Again, we have theists treading where observable science tells a very different story. Again, they are quite certain of their position and in defense of it they use fallen angels (more supernatural beings) as the scapegoat. "Satan planted those fossils to test man's faith." Seriously?

As for religion being the font of morality and social order, that is hardly the case. No one needs a supernatural being to tell them it is wrong to harm others. To do unto others as one would have done unto them is pretty basic stuff that our ancestors grasped long before they could speak or write. Otherwise, we would have never made it to the point of an actual communal society.

No one needs a religion to tell them that if they are doing something that is contrary to the well-being of another human it is wrong. Stealing, lying, killing, assault. All these things are contrary to the well-being of another human. We know this at our core because to have it done to us harms us and we can feel it. No one had to climb a mountain and get that written on stone tablets to know it.

Is there an afterlife? I doubt there is one in the form of our conscious continuing to exist and going to reside in a heaven or hell. Or even to be recycled through reincarnation. Where does the energy that we are go? I do not know. From a scientific standpoint we know that we are all made of matter. We know that all matter is energy. We don't really understand the quantum mechanics of it all.

I must admit that there are areas of quantum mechanics that one can use to argue that we might all be connected on some level. That on some level we do continue to exist after the energy leaves the body. Einstien's "spooky action at a distance" and the whole concept of not being able to measure particles properties at the quantum level because observing them changes their state I find baffling. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to understand it. I'm not going to ascribe all of that to the intentions of some supernatural being. I'm going to keep searching for an answer.

The Bible says this:

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me."

I believe we have outgrown religion. When we were children in our evolution and knowledge and did not understand the world we live in, religion, deities were proper. Now that we have grown to a point beyond that childhood it is time to put away those childhood beliefs. There is so much more for us to learn and remaining mired in childish beliefs is not helpful.

Whenever you see a non-theist talking about a literal interpretation of the Bible, just realize they are not talking about you, but rather about your co-theists who DO take the Bible literally!

Most theists do not agree with you that the Bible is all metaphor and ethics. Those are the people us non-theists talk about when we mock the Bible stories as ridiculous.

And let's not forget, this isn't a cut-and-dried "literalists" vs "non-literalists" thing we've got here. ALL believers take at least SOME of their book literally, or else they wouldn't be a believer.

Some don't understand this nuance though, or won't acknowledge that they do indeed take parts of the bible literally. They understand where that will lead, and they don't like it, so they don't talk about it, and will just attack anyone to tries to point it out - or even ask questions.

I've asked this question before and no one can answer it. I wonder why?

And to what question?

I'm asking how you can tell when you've found one.

Evidently you can't.

Not the same thing at all.

It's OK. You're not ready.

Is to go through the Bible and label the different passages as historical and not historical/literary.

And that can be added to the task of those that claim that Jesus brought a new covenant so certain parts of the Old Testament can be ignored (which parts can and can't be?) which flies in the face of a God who claims He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, as well as Jesus saying that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled.

Once that's done, you can claim the Bible is a moral textbook.

And then you would be wrong about that. An omnipotent being whose first solution to most problems is to kill - or have humans do His dirty work - nearly everyone and start over? One who okayed slavery and has created a vast torture pit to punish people for infinity for "committing" a finite crime of not believing in Him - OR never hearing about Him in the first place?

TlalocW

making statements about what certain astrophysicists should not be able to say.

That is clearly why NOMA is rubbish. The theists cannot help themselves. They absolutely have to tread across the border and they've been doing it for centuries.

And the literal religious position ploy does not help one maintain that NOMA exists because any and all theist claims reside on the same baseless tread into what is true about the universe.

Mankind has simply been reading it wrong for two millennia and some change.

Sure is strange this non-literal interpretation became really popular once the scientific evidence of its inaccuracy became more or less unassailable. Oh, well. Must be a coincidence.