I want to believe in evolution

[Lorizael]

If you look at the bible from a purely historical standpoint, the supernatural stuff alone would cause you to have to treat many of the sources as potentially highly unreliable.

Someone's never read his Herodotus.

[kentonio]

Someone's never read his Herodotus.

Really not sure where you're trying to go with that one.

[Jon Miller]

Obviously you can believe whatever you wish to believe, but when your beliefs stand so far outside the realms of rationality then I'm afraid you're going to have to get used to people calling them myths.

Myths and Legends mean something though. They have definitions.

You shouldn't just say 'this is a myth or a legend' when it doesn't fulfill the definition of a myth or a legend.

Even saying that it is a concocted lie would be more reasonable.

JM

[Jon Miller]

A modern experiment using scientific tools that produced an unexpected result. An experiment that could then be repeated to test its validity.

I hope MikeH understands my example.

JM

[kentonio]

Myths and Legends mean something though. They have definitions.

You shouldn't just say 'this is a myth or a legend' when it doesn't fulfill the definition of a myth or a legend.

myth-

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Seems to fulfil several those conditions quite admirably.

I hope MikeH understands my example.

JM

You've repeated it twice now, it wasn't exactly complex. I just don't believe it helps your argument in the way you think it does. The reason I mentioned the reproduction of the experiment was just that it is far more reasonable to believe something you are told when the story is something that you can later be confident can be tested and verified. There is no reason why those who believed the neutrino result would have to take that on permanent faith.

[Jon Miller]

Except the only definition of myth which works in your statement is 3. And lie would be better used, and would provide clearer meaning to those who talk with you.

When you are saying that you don't believe it because it is a myth, are you meaning that it is a lie? Because if you had said so I would have disagreed but had nothing more to say. When you use myth and not lie as a reason not to believe something, then you are referring to 1. (Obviously 2, 4, and 5 are statements of unbelief and not reasons for unbelief)

So you are wrong, like you always are on this subject.

I repeated it twice, but you still seem to have missed the point. You are right that it isn't complex.

So that means you are stupid? Or purposefully being obtuse? Or something else?

JM

[C0ckney]

Absolutely untrue, that's not how history works. If you look at the bible from a purely historical standpoint, the supernatural stuff alone would cause you to have to treat many of the sources as potentially highly unreliable.

well yes and no. for example, there's a book written by a persian sea captain which tells the stories of his travels around the indian ocean, which was written in the 10th century. this book contains many fantastic stories about sea monsters, which are obviously fictional. it also contains many facts and observations about the trade patterns of the indian ocean and the customs and politics of various states and kingdoms, which are confirmed by other sources. there are also some observations and stories, which we don't have other direct evidence for but which seem plausible.

the stuff about the sea monsters does not invalidate the other material, while at the same time, this other material does not make the sea monster stories credible. the same source can contain things which are true and things which are not true. we see this in a huge number of sources. the authors probably had a variety of motives for including fictional elements in their accounts, poetry, allegory, a repetition of ancient stories/myths to lend credibility to their account (bizarre as that may sound), or simply to entertain the reader.

you can see this same mix of fact and fiction in saint's lives, which were very popular in medieval europe. it's almost certain that parts of most stories are true. so hermit x spending 25 years sitting on a plinth or on a hill somewhere probably happened. it's when hermit x cured diseases or made the lame walk that it becomes more problematic. although again here it may be more complex than it first seems. we can say that the 'miracle' stories were completely invented, and many surely were, but i think it's likely that some were true. not true in the sense that there was a 'miracle', divine intervention or some such, but rather that a sick person went to see hermit x and their health improved, because they really believed that hermit x had the power (through god) to cure them. modern science tells us about the placebo effect, but at the time, it was probably reasonable to believe that it was some kind of miracle.

[kentonio]

Except the only definition of myth which works in your statement is 3.

Number 1 fits this case perfectly.

And lie would be better used, and would provide clearer meaning to those who talk with you.

I don't consider most of it a direct lie, often in cults and sects the people involved are not deliberately setting out to deceive. The leader maybe but not generally all the followers.

So you are wrong, like you always are on this subject.

Why do you chose to discuss this stuff when you are seemingly incapable of not getting your panties in a bunch about it?

I repeated it twice, but you still seem to have missed the point. You are right that it isn't complex.

So that means you are stupid? Or purposefully being obtuse? Or something else?

Feel free to enlighten me then oh wise one. I'm sure there is hidden depth in your post just waiting to leap out.

[kentonio]

well yes and no. for example, there's a book written by a persian sea captain which tells the stories of his travels around the indian ocean, which was written in the 10th century. this book contains many fantastic stories about sea monsters, which are obviously fictional. it also contains many facts and observations about the trade patterns of the indian ocean and the customs and politics of various states and kingdoms, which are confirmed by other sources. there is also some observations and stories, which we don't have other direct evidence for but which seem plausible.

True, but the key there is that they were confirmed by other sources. There is certainly lots of stuff in the bible that is true to do with places and even some events, but when someone is telling a story about something supernatural happening, that isn't any confirmation that the event itself happened, even in a non-supernatural way.

[Jon Miller]

Number 1 fits this case perfectly.

Except it doesn't, which has been pointed out repeatedly by myself.

I shouldn't even need to point it out, if you had truly considered Christianity you should know the historical evidence yourself.

Maybe you will listen to COckney who has a similar point but doesn't believe that Christ rose from the dead.

JM

[Jon Miller]

True, but the key there is that they were confirmed by other sources. There is certainly lots of stuff in the bible that is true to do with places and even some events, but when someone is telling a story about something supernatural happening, that isn't any confirmation that the event itself happened, even in a non-supernatural way.

That isn't the point I have been trying to make!

What do you understand a history to be? What do you understand a story to be? What do you understand a witness to be?

I think you don't even understand this, or are not doing so here because you are against Christianity for some reason.

JM

[kentonio]

Except it doesn't, which has been pointed out repeatedly by myself.

With all due respect sir, you repeatedly saying something does not make it so. Not when you don't back up your assertions with anything concrete.

I shouldn't even need to point it out, if you had truly considered Christianity you should know the historical evidence yourself.

You are making no sense now. You're fine with it being an 'any invented story, idea, or concept' but not with it being 'a traditional or legendary story'.

Maybe you will listen to COckney who has a similar point but doesn't believe that Christ rose from the dead.

C0ckney is making a lot of sense. You, not so much.

That isn't the point I have been trying to make!

What do you understand a history to be? What do you understand a story to be? What do you understand a witness to be?

I think you don't even understand this, or are not doing so here because you are against Christianity for some reason.

Then explain the point you were trying to make for goodness sake, and preferably without all this pitiful 'you must just hate Christianity' nonsense.

[Kidlicious]

How is that any different from any of the other holy and unholy books from biblical and pre-biblical times that also contain 'eye-witness' testimonies and 'actual events', all of which defy logic, reason and rationality?

I wasn't talking about how the Bible is different from other religious scripture. I was talking about how it's different from friction. You claimed that it was friction. The Bible is, of course, different than other religious texts, but that's irrelevant. I really wish you would be more honest.

Some might have been liars, I'd guess that most of them were just gullible though, as people taken in by cults tend to be.

Idk if you think they are liars. That doesn't make it fiction. If I right a book about posting on forums on the internet, and I lie, that doesn't make it fiction. It makes it bad non-fiction, and it makes me a liar.

Interesting story btw, an excavation a few decades back in the middle east found an example of an old pottery jug with a second concealed compartment. A device in the handle let you pour from either of the compartments. Interesting how miracles work, isn't it.

So what?

I'm daft for not believing that people can walk on water, part seas and rise from the dead?

Nope. You're daft for not knowing things, like what makes written work fiction or non-fiction.

[Kidlicious]

It's a book made over a few hundred years, which went through multiple different translations, and several editorial revision processes in which a lot of other contemporary gospels which also have equivalent historical basis were rejected because they didn't fit with the editorial direction the editors wished to take. And a book designed primarily to convince the reader of the existence of the god they favoured and the story of Jesus who they followed.

It also contains multiple recordings of some events, which are sometimes contradictory.

To choose to have faith in that book, is fine, but to look at historically and suggest that there aren't serious reasons to take a lot of what it says with a pinch of salt - and to require less biased confirmation - seems troublesome.

You're talking about books like the gospel according to Judas? That's a bit ridiculous. The gospel according to Mark is the earliest gospel. The other 3 gospels are consistant with it. The other books like the gospel according to Thomas do not emphasis the crucification so they were correctly not included. That doesn't necessarity mean that they are just all lies.

[Kidlicious]

When one goat herder says that another goat herder confirms their story about dead people coming back to life, that doesn't constitute what I'd call proof. The vast majority of the planet used to believe in sea monsters, dark spirits and the wrath of a wide pantheon of gods, should we take those eye witness accounts as accurate?

Tell me who the goat herders are that wrote the NT.

btw, here's a joke for you. An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turns to her and says. "let's talk about how God doesn't exist." The little girl says "first let me ask you a question. A horse, cow, and deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excrets little pelets, while a cow turns out flat patties, and a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is? The atheist says, "I don't know." The little girl replies, "How are you going to talk about the existence of God when you don't know ****?"