Humans aren't animals.

[muses_nightmare]

It was a polite way of me asking "So what?".

Okay and?

This was the point I was trying to make all along, you were the one arguing about them mixing, I never was. I was simply pointing that out.

[Ipecac Drano]

Ipecac, do you agree with the concept of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria)? It's the idea that science and religion each have their separate areas where they apply - science's realm is empirically testable claims, or how questions, and religion's realm is questions of morals and meanings, or why questions.

Yes.

The biggest problem with NOMA is that religion refuses to confine itself in this way. Religion constantly makes testable claims, most of which fail when scientifically tested.

Then the problem wouldn't be with NOMA; it would be with religion.

[Ipecac Drano]

Okay and?

Just making sure that we were on the same page.

[Ghel]

I wonder if people who believe humans aren't animals get flu shots and other immunizations* or wash their hands before eating. Neither would be necessary if humans weren't animals. I wonder what they think of people who have received organ transplants from animals, which wouldn't be possible if humans weren't animals.

*I know there's antivaxers out there in the world, but their excuses usually fall into one of two categories: either they claim that vaccines are more harmful than the illnesses they prevent (they're not) or they say that if their child becomes sick, it's God's will, which is a horrible reason for anything.

[Sleepwalker]

When 'god' makes a claim about the physical world, it, and he, can be tested. God of the gaps, with the gaps shrinking yearly.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I prefer to think of it thusly: Genesis states that on the sixth day God created "Man" in his image. A lot of folks interpret this as fully developed human beings, but what if "Man" actually meant the beginnings of the human species, from the neanderthal man and homo erectus on up? To me this makes more logical sense.

[Talon]

Genesis states that on the sixth day God created "Man" in his image. A lot of folks interpret this as fully developed human beings, but what if "Man" actually meant the beginnings of the human species, from the neanderthal man and homo erectus on up? To me this makes more logical sense.

Except it's not likely that the authors of Genesis could have known about neanderthals, homo erectus, or any other basal form of human being.

[Ipecac Drano]

Back in those days, there were a lot of earthquakes and quarry digging which would reveal many fossils; all of which were misinterpreted by the local populace as being the remains of many mythical creatures such as cyclops and griffins.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Except it's not likely that the authors of Genesis could have known about neanderthals, homo erectus, or any other basal form of human being.

That's true, BUT for religious folk the general belief is that the words of the bible were given to the authors by God who WOULD have known. I just think the creation account in Genesis is simplified for basic human understanding. Imagining the world being created in six days in rather large steps is pretty easy compared to the complexity and length of time it actually took, regardless of if a higher power had anything to do with it or not.

[Ipecac Drano]

That's true, BUT for religious folk the general belief is that the words of the bible were given to the authors by God who WOULD have known.

A couple of things wrong with that. First, for those who believe that, there is no mention of primitive men mentioned in the Bible. Secondly, as you pointed out, since the Bible got the development of the Earth wrong, a paradox is now created: either the Bible is not the word of God as he is considered to be unerring, or God is not without error.

I just think the creation account in Genesis is simplified for basic human understanding. Imagining the world being created in six days in rather large steps is pretty easy compared to the complexity and length of time it actually took, regardless of if a higher power had anything to do with it or not.

But back when it was written, there was very little knowledge of the world. They had no way of knowing the things then that we know now. There was nothing sophisticated to be simplified.

[Andara Bledin]

That's true, BUT for religious folk the general belief is that the words of the bible were given to the authors by God who WOULD have known. I just think the creation account in Genesis is simplified for basic human understanding. Imagining the world being created in six days in rather large steps is pretty easy compared to the complexity and length of time it actually took, regardless of if a higher power had anything to do with it or not.

From what I understand, although this isn't something I've looked into personally, one day to God would be something akin to a a revolution of the center of the universe as opposed to a single revolution of some little planet out on the rim of some minor galaxy that he decided to play with.

But back when it was written, there was very little knowledge of the world. They had no way of knowing the things then that we know now. There was nothing sophisticated to be simplified.

I think this statement is actually supportive of that which you are arguing against.

Back when it was written, the world was viewed in a much more rudimentary manner. But God would have an even greater understanding than we have now. So, God's perspective would be immeasurably complex, and thus outside of the understanding of those without the experience to comprehend.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

I think what Ipecac is saying is that the information handed out by the Bible makes sense if it was written by humans who only had the knowledge that was available to humans at the time it was written. If it was inspired by a god with god-like knowledge, we would expect it to say things like:

The Earth is a sphere.
The Earth orbits the Sun.
The stars are trillions of miles away.
It is wrong for any human being to own another human being as property.
Rape is wrong.

Yet, it says none of these things. If a knowledgeable, benevolent God inspired the Bible writers, I would expect the above and much more to be in the Bible.

[Ipecac Drano]

I think this statement is actually supportive of that which you are arguing against.

I guess, if one has to twist things...

Back when it was written, the world was viewed in a much more rudimentary manner. But God would have an even greater understanding than we have now. So, God's perspective would be immeasurably complex, and thus outside of the understanding of those without the experience to comprehend.

Too bad none of that "greater understanding" had trickled down to his followers when the Bible was written.

In addendum: Pretty much what Ghel had said.

[Andara Bledin]

Unfortunately, we have no way to know what never got included and what later got removed or what was altered outright.

The Bible has become something like a game of socio-political/religious telephone spanning millennia.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Unfortunately, we have no way to know what never got included and what later got removed or what was altered outright.

It appears that God, as you define it, is not omnipotent.

Why would God not seek to correct those things (such as what I listed in my previous post) that supposedly never got included or were later removed or altered? Why would God foster concepts such as that women are property? Or that genocide is ok?

Nothing in the Bible points to a real, actual God. Instead, it all suggests a God of myth and legend.