Wow, it has been awhile since I have been to this forum. Been busy with my new book, just published.
http://www.simplylogicandreason.com/
The first part of my book shows that there is no conflict between current scientific theories like the Big Bang and Evolution, without distorting either one.
Modern Creationists and their utter disregard for science prompted the writing of this book.
In fact, creationists are a minority among Christians, they are just more vocal. I hope this book shows that religion, history, genetics and science are not enemies.
Instead of fighting over trivial matters like creation, the world has far more pressing problems. I hope my book lays this argument to rest, and we can devote our time to things that really matter.
Any comments or questions, fire away.
Looks like a good effort in the same direction as one my current threads here. Any chance you could summarize the scientific content?
QUOTE (Aireal+Apr 22 2011, 08:18 PM)
The first part of my book shows that there is no conflict between current scientific theories like the Big Bang and Evolution, without distorting either one.
Taken literally Genesis is wrong, just flat out wrong. As such you have to read it allegorically and if you do that then you're twisting it, even if its only a little. As such your statement is false.
Taken literally Genesis is wrong, just flat out wrong. As such you have to read it allegorically and if you do that then you're twisting it, even if its only a little. As such your statement is false.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 22 2011, 02:59 PM)
Taken literally Genesis is wrong, just flat out wrong. As such you have to read it allegorically and if you do that then you're twisting it, even if its only a little. As such your statement is false.
Nothing about allegory necessitates "twisting". If you assume the authority of a Christian to tell you how things should be evaluated (i.e. literally), you are conceding their "expertise" to override your own analytical skills. Like anything else, I think the proper way to evaluate anything includes all available data. So the only way to avoid reading things like the Bible in the light of scientific advancement is to allow people to alloy your reasoning on a given subject.
No need to let Christians define the parameters of any discussion of the Bible. But usually such discussions are about argument rather than evaluation.
Nothing about allegory necessitates "twisting". If you assume the authority of a Christian to tell you how things should be evaluated (i.e. literally), you are conceding their "expertise" to override your own analytical skills. Like anything else, I think the proper way to evaluate anything includes all available data. So the only way to avoid reading things like the Bible in the light of scientific advancement is to allow people to alloy your reasoning on a given subject.
No need to let Christians define the parameters of any discussion of the Bible. But usually such discussions are about argument rather than evaluation.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 22 2011, 10:23 PM)
Nothing about allegory necessitates "twisting".
By its very nature taking something as allegorical means not trying it literally and how you choose to not take it literally is up to you, aka twisting it. Whether you twist it a lot or a little, you're still putting your own spin on it.
By its very nature taking something as allegorical means not trying it literally and how you choose to not take it literally is up to you, aka twisting it. Whether you twist it a lot or a little, you're still putting your own spin on it.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 22 2011, 10:23 PM)
. If you assume the authority of a Christian to tell you how things should be evaluated (i.e. literally), you are conceding their "expertise" to override your own analytical skills
Most Christians know less about Christianity than atheists. A recent survey in the US showed that those most knowledgeable about religion in general are Jews, Mormons and atheists. As such I wouldn't call the 'authority of a christian' 'expertise' by any stretch of the quotation marks.
Besides, I don't interpret the bible at all, I just respond to other people's take on it. If someone takes it literally then I respond to their claims. If they take it non-literally then I respond to their claims differently. I have evaluated the bible using my own analytical skills and I find it fails to be believable.
Besides, I don't interpret the bible at all, I just respond to other people's take on it. If someone takes it literally then I respond to their claims. If they take it non-literally then I respond to their claims differently. I have evaluated the bible using my own analytical skills and I find it fails to be believable.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 22 2011, 10:23 PM)
Like anything else, I think the proper way to evaluate anything includes all available data.
Hence why I don't believe it. It's no scientifically accurate so it is not literally true. The more theological claims like "A god exists" and "Jesus was his son who resurrected" fail to meet their burden of proof and thus I don't believe them.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 22 2011, 10:23 PM)
No need to let Christians define the parameters of any discussion of the Bible. But usually such discussions are about argument rather than evaluation.
I don't believe the bible based on my own evaluation. Other people's take on the bible comes into play when I'm discussing their belief with them. For instance if I'm to discuss with someone whether or not god exists I have to ask "What is your definition of god?" because even saying "I'm a Christian" doesn't narrow it down to a unique definition, as there's more than 30,000 denominations of Christianity in the world, all of whom think the others are wrong about something to do with that issue. That's all to do with the fact how you read the bible as an allegory is dependent on how people twist and interpret it. Even among the literalists there's still plenty of disagreement.
From my point of view no way of spinning the bible makes it believable, scientific or worthy of being taken seriously. Even in such things as the issue of morals its possible to develop secular morality, the 10 commandments are not required for such things. Nothing good comes from the bible which cannot be obtained by secular means, such as morals or scientific knowledge. If you have to pick and choose what you accept from it then why not throw it out?
From my point of view no way of spinning the bible makes it believable, scientific or worthy of being taken seriously. Even in such things as the issue of morals its possible to develop secular morality, the 10 commandments are not required for such things. Nothing good comes from the bible which cannot be obtained by secular means, such as morals or scientific knowledge. If you have to pick and choose what you accept from it then why not throw it out?
QUOTE (definition of allegory+)
a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.
Many modern physics subjects are abstract to us, much more so to ancient man, so allegory would have been the only possible way to deal with any similar subjects. Now the relation to the represented abstraction may indeed have been lost to time, but this doesn't presuppose any twisting.
Survived: not banished, to persist, or remain usable, still able to login, that sort of thing.
You seem nice, Fred. So, I’ll let you in on a secret. I’ve watched my son’s friends play video games and I think I’ve figured out the code for extra lives.
If you get a warning, you need to click the positive button in rpenner’s feedback, but if you want to avoid a warning altogether, you need to type the following in a thread.
“I think our moderate is a veritable wealth of knowledge on a wide-ranging set of topics.”
It seems to work. Good luck!
What did you get a warning for BTW?
Many modern physics subjects are abstract to us, much more so to ancient man, so allegory would have been the only possible way to deal with any similar subjects. Now the relation to the represented abstraction may indeed have been lost to time, but this doesn't presuppose any twisting.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Most Christians know less about Christianity than atheists. A recent survey in the US showed that those most knowledgeable about religion in general are Jews, Mormons and atheists. As such I wouldn't call the 'authority of a christian' 'expertise' by any stretch of the quotation marks.
Completely agreed.
I'd say that's more confirmation bias than an inherent fault of allegory. Confirmation bias is what keeps Christian from using other things, such as science, to evaluate any possible allegories. Either way, I assume you'd agree that the problem resides on the interpretation side, as objectively, the Bible can be viewed as an anthropological history. And as such, it is relevant to the study of epistemology, which includes philosophy and science.
Completely agreed.
QUOTE
That's all to do with the fact how you read the bible as an allegory is dependent on how people twist and interpret it. Even among the literalists there's still plenty of disagreement.
I'd say that's more confirmation bias than an inherent fault of allegory. Confirmation bias is what keeps Christian from using other things, such as science, to evaluate any possible allegories. Either way, I assume you'd agree that the problem resides on the interpretation side, as objectively, the Bible can be viewed as an anthropological history. And as such, it is relevant to the study of epistemology, which includes philosophy and science.
So many posts, where do I start.
First I worked from the Hebrew and not the English translation. The English does not translate some words and leaves them completely out. Other places where the text are corrupted, they just put whatever word they felt fit, often with no rhyme or reason. Even the same word in Hebrew is often translated differently from passage to passage and version to version.
So my contention is that English translations distort the original intent.
Secondly the Genesis account is poetic enough that one does not have to twist it to not find a conflict with scientific theories. Now the Bible is not a scientific work, and can neither confirm or deny any scientific theory. But I show that it at least does not conflict with science.
Lastly, God can not be "proved" and I don't try. But the Penentheist view of God seen in Genesis works through the Laws of science, not in opposition to them.
First I worked from the Hebrew and not the English translation. The English does not translate some words and leaves them completely out. Other places where the text are corrupted, they just put whatever word they felt fit, often with no rhyme or reason. Even the same word in Hebrew is often translated differently from passage to passage and version to version.
So my contention is that English translations distort the original intent.
Secondly the Genesis account is poetic enough that one does not have to twist it to not find a conflict with scientific theories. Now the Bible is not a scientific work, and can neither confirm or deny any scientific theory. But I show that it at least does not conflict with science.
Lastly, God can not be "proved" and I don't try. But the Penentheist view of God seen in Genesis works through the Laws of science, not in opposition to them.
Don't worry, I think it sounds very promising. What are the odds of seeing this at national retail booksellers?
Any mention of "God" around here illicits similar response, whether the intent is to prove, argue belief, or not. I think you have a good goal there. If you can't argue with a foolish man, try educating him in a language he understands.
Any mention of "God" around here illicits similar response, whether the intent is to prove, argue belief, or not. I think you have a good goal there. If you can't argue with a foolish man, try educating him in a language he understands.
Synthsin75
Thanks, never mentioned religion around here before, was not expecting the reaction, especially on the other thread which was supposed to be about the physics in Book 2, and unrelated to the theological section in Book 1.
It can already be ordered from any bookstore, E-bay, E-books, from the publisher or my web site. But bookstore’s only stock high volume sellers, and it just came out yesterday.
As I work from the Hebrew, in a sense I am being very literal in my translation. Which will upset many religious people.
Oddly, I am on a number of Atheist and Freethinker sites, and they are some of my biggest supporters.
I am an Anti-Theist, so we have much in common, even though I am a believer. I am also a Native American, and that is seen in my work on Genesis.
I said when I wrote the book to my friends, believer and atheist alike, everyone will find something they love and something they hate in my book. As a writer, that is my job, make people think, make them question, make them find out things for themselves.
Thanks, never mentioned religion around here before, was not expecting the reaction, especially on the other thread which was supposed to be about the physics in Book 2, and unrelated to the theological section in Book 1.
It can already be ordered from any bookstore, E-bay, E-books, from the publisher or my web site. But bookstore’s only stock high volume sellers, and it just came out yesterday.
As I work from the Hebrew, in a sense I am being very literal in my translation. Which will upset many religious people.
Oddly, I am on a number of Atheist and Freethinker sites, and they are some of my biggest supporters.
I am an Anti-Theist, so we have much in common, even though I am a believer. I am also a Native American, and that is seen in my work on Genesis.
I said when I wrote the book to my friends, believer and atheist alike, everyone will find something they love and something they hate in my book. As a writer, that is my job, make people think, make them question, make them find out things for themselves.
This is BS. If we’re allowed to sell ѕhit on here, I’m going start selling “I Survived Physforum” t-shirts, better yet, ATHEIST t-shirts. 
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Apr 23 2011, 02:37 AM)
This is BS. If we’re allowed to sell ѕhit on here, I’m going start selling “I Survived Physforum” t-shirts, better yet, ATHEIST t-shirts.
What would survive mean? I want one anyway (Pysforum T-shirt)
What would survive mean? I want one anyway (Pysforum T-shirt)
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Apr 23 2011, 05:58 AM)
What would survive mean? I want one anyway (Pysforum T-shirt)
Survived: not banished, to persist, or remain usable, still able to login, that sort of thing.
You seem nice, Fred. So, I’ll let you in on a secret. I’ve watched my son’s friends play video games and I think I’ve figured out the code for extra lives.
If you get a warning, you need to click the positive button in rpenner’s feedback, but if you want to avoid a warning altogether, you need to type the following in a thread.
“I think our moderate is a veritable wealth of knowledge on a wide-ranging set of topics.”
It seems to work. Good luck!
Survived: not banished, to persist, or remain usable, still able to login, that sort of thing.
You seem nice, Fred. So, I’ll let you in on a secret. I’ve watched my son’s friends play video games and I think I’ve figured out the code for extra lives.
If you get a warning, you need to click the positive button in rpenner’s feedback, but if you want to avoid a warning altogether, you need to type the following in a thread.
“I think our moderate is a veritable wealth of knowledge on a wide-ranging set of topics.”
It seems to work. Good luck!
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Apr 23 2011, 03:20 PM)
Survived: not banished, to persist, or remain usable, still able to login, that sort of thing.
You seem nice, Fred. So, I’ll let you in on a secret. I’ve watched my son’s friends play video games and I think I’ve figured out the code for extra lives.
If you get a warning, you need to click the positive button in rpenner’s feedback, but if you want to avoid a warning altogether, you need to type the following in a thread.
“I think our moderate is a veritable wealth of knowledge on a wide-ranging set of topics.”
It seems to work. Good luck!
What did you get a warning for BTW?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Apr 23 2011, 08:25 AM)
What did you get a warning for BTW?
I received a warning for feeding trolls, but I swear, I'm innocent. They were feeding me, and I, like the Jewish mythical 'night hag’, was simply playing with my food.
Bad rap...
I received a warning for feeding trolls, but I swear, I'm innocent. They were feeding me, and I, like the Jewish mythical 'night hag’, was simply playing with my food.
Bad rap...
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Apr 23 2011, 11:48 AM)
I received a warning for feeding trolls, but I swear, I'm innocent. They were feeding me, and I, like the Jewish mythical 'night hag’, was simply playing with my food.
That's weird. I swear I've fed my share of trolls in my time. I seem to be one of the few people around here without any warnings.
That's weird. I swear I've fed my share of trolls in my time. I seem to be one of the few people around here without any warnings.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
That's weird. I swear I've fed my share of trolls in my time. I seem to be one of the few people around here without any warnings.
Is there another code then, little buddy? I think we should get an “I Survived Physforum” t-shirt when we reach a thousand posts, eh?
BTW, I finally figured out the IP thingy on my own.
Bwahahaha…
Is there another code then, little buddy? I think we should get an “I Survived Physforum” t-shirt when we reach a thousand posts, eh?
BTW, I finally figured out the IP thingy on my own.
Bwahahaha…
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Apr 23 2011, 04:48 PM)
I received a warning for feeding trolls, but I swear, I'm innocent. They were feeding me, and I, like the Jewish mythical 'night hag’, was simply playing with my food.
Bad rap...
Bad Bad NA
Bad rap...
Bad Bad NA
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.