
CHRISTIANITY
Christianity
Apologetics
Bible
God - Theology
Jesus
Miracles
Inspirational
Unbelievers Compliment Christianity
William Lane Craig
ATHEISM
Atheism
Project-Answering Atheism
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Dan Barker
Daniel Dennett
Bart Ehrman
Bill Maher
PZ Myers
Quentin Smith
Michael Shermer
New Atheists
Atheism’s Public Relations Problems
Atheist Bus Ads and Billboards
Atheist Child Rearing
ExChristian.Net
PositiveAtheism.org
Evilbible.com
The BOBA Digest
The Wedgie Document
RELIGIONS
Judaism (Rabbinic, Messianic, etc.)
Baha'i
Islam
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormonism
Catholicism
Unitarian Universalism
Misc. Religions
MISC.
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism
Morality / Ethics
Rape
Meaning and Purpose
Homosexuality
Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars, etc.
Gospel of Judas
The Lost Tomb of Jesus
Pop Culture and Politics
Science
Cosmology
Evolution
Francis Collins
RESOURCES
Audio
Books
TFT essay "Books"
Debate
Links
Video
Find it Fast - Fast Facts
Visuals - Illustrations and Photos
Recommendations for the Month
Mariano:
ReplyDeleteI would say that the telephone game is a good example of how twisted the original knowledge can become over time. It is an extreme scenario, but a scenario that is nonetheless possible within the parameters of purely oral traditions. The difference between telephone and the wise old men of the ancient world you so revere is simply one of degree, not of kind.
The point is not to argue the whole process is rotten to the core, but simply to cast reasonable doubt on the "truth" of any given idea.
And if reasonable doubt is permissible for that idea, it would seem foolish to carry that idea to the point of dogma, to the point of worship and reverence as "The One and Only Truth." Especially since such authority is not routinely given to ideas for which there is more evidence and inherent reliability.
But is "reasonable doubt permissible for that idea"? God certainly understands the problems with data transmission. These problems are overcome via redundancy. The 2nd diagram shows redundancy via multiple broadcast; however there is another form of redundancy which the diagram doesn't show; namely, internal redundancy. God says the same things, over and over. With all of this redundancy, it's hard to miss the message.
ReplyDeletewrf3:
ReplyDelete"But is "reasonable doubt permissible for that idea"? God certainly understands the problems with data transmission."
2 points: (1) if god understood the problems with data transmission, why did he not account for it when he sent the message to mankind? (2) you almost prove my point for me--you admit there are problems with data transmission; and as long as there are problems with data transmission, reasonable doubt is permissible, especially given the titanic claims being made.
"With all of this redundancy, it's hard to miss the message."
This is true--as far as the Bible is concerned. One must accept the authority of the Bible in order for this argument to wash. What logical basis is there to adhere to the Bible and not some other text?
If one takes all statements in the Bible to be the word of God (inspired, direct, transcribed or whatever) then it He most certainly is not consistent.
ReplyDeleteThere are broad themes we can pull from the Bible, however: love, sin & repentance, the veracity of the Bible itself. These things emerge as general ideas which are consistent throughout.
However, the mental/linguistic gymnastics involved in figuring out when it's not permitted to kill people is laughable. God (of the Bible) is shown to be neither omniscient nor omnipotent, he infrequently lies, and he even changes his mind.
There's truly only one thing which is perfectly consistent throughout the books: regardless of what we think about the instructions, humans are supposed to do whatever God says.
@WEM -
ReplyDelete"If one takes all statements in the Bible to be the word of God (inspired, direct, transcribed or whatever) then it He most certainly is not consistent."
How do you go about showing they are inconsistent?
I doubt that it would change your opinion, but don't you think it would be more intellectually honest to quote what was actually said at the conference rather than relying on Komoszewski's interpretation of Ehrman's statements?
ReplyDeletemoney online never been this easy and transparent. You would find great tips on how to make that dream amount every month. So go ahead and click here for more details and open floodgates to your online income. All the best.
ReplyDeleteEarning
Earning money online never been this easy and transparent. You would find great tips on how to make that dream amount every month. So go ahead and click here for more details and open floodgates to your online income. All the best.
ReplyDeleteThe graphics don't consider the prior possibility: the source may be not true or even inexistent. And prior to the source, in case of confirming the true existence of ít, one must consider the investigation on the source of the source, and so on.
ReplyDelete