Total Posts:126|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religious Doctrine Tests False

RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 5:51:36 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
In another thread, I wrote:

At 7/23/2016 7:51:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:41:18 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
The only issue I have is your claim that a single Catholic doctrine has been shown to be wrong. But, that was only one small paragraph in your comprehensive post.
Actually, my claim was broader -- it's that all the testable doctrines of monotheistic dualism have been serially false. I wasn't thinking specifically about RC doctrine, but the whole body of belief from which Abrahamic thought has been built (and other monotheistic dualism like Zoroastrianism, which nobody else in-forum cares about. D)
But I think we might differ on what is doctrine (as opposed to what is canon) and what testable means. It's not directly relevant to this thread, but I think my definition of these terms would horrify you. :D

To which Skep replied:
At 7/25/2016 2:49:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
If you get the urge, I would be interested in seeing this topic explored (assuming others are interested).

This thread is broadly about what is a religious doctrine, what does it mean to test it, and what did I mean when I said that when you can test the doctrines of monotheistic dualism, they end up serially false.

First some definitions:

Doctrine: a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or belief system -- e.g. a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] (So a doctrine isn't simply religious canon, but incorporates how canon is selected, standardised, taught and officially interpreted.)

Monotheistic Dualism: In religion, dualism means the belief in two supreme opposed powers or gods, or sets of divine or demonic beings, that caused the world to exist. [https://www.britannica.com...] By 'monotheistic dualism' I simply meant belief in a creator God and an opposing Adversary whose conflict shapes causality and the human moral condition. This captures most but not all Christianity, plus most Islam and Zoroastrianism, but does not capture most Judaic thought.

For my definition of 'testing', members who know me to be an empiricist, pedant and geek may be unsurprised to see the following nerdy definition:

Test: Verification and validation are independent procedures used together for checking that a system meets specifications and fulfills its intended purpose. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Informally, validation of a body of thought is assurance that it meets its intended purpose transparently and accountably, while verification is assurance that it does so with appropriate accuracy and precision. The language I've used is from engineering, but there's an analogous definition in science, and we see versions of it turning up now in virtually all professional walks of life, from justice through to journalism, law enforcement and financial management -- it's essentially how we provide assurance on the probity of our thought in a professional environment.

So those are my definitions. Now let me sketch a rationale for discussion...

Monotheistic dualism isn't the whole of religion. For example, Buddhists aren't monotheists and tend not to be dualists. Hindus generally aren't monotheists or dualists either. And some Christians are no longer monotheistic dualists -- they're monotheists, but no longer frame moral concerns as a battle of absolute good and evil, although that is the canonical tradition. So my comment doesn't apply to all Christians, though it captures most historical Christian thought. I imagine the same may be true of some modern Muslims.

As an aside, members noting that traditional Judaism does not classify as monotheistic dualism, might wonder at that. One possible explanation relates to the history of Zoroastrianism -- arguably the first monotheistic belief-system, it first appeared as a farmer's religion in the region between Northern India and ancient Iran, and grew to become a dualist monotheistic system associated with the Persian Empire -- probably the first great monotheistic world religion. Its monotheism is believed by many scholars to have influenced Juduaism, while its dualism may have influenced both Christianity and Islam, and its idea of a saviour (the water-walking, virgin-birthed, return-from-the-dead-to-fight-evil Saoshyant) may also have influenced Christianity. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

Regardless, the reason I singled out monotheistic dualism is that in a war between good and evil, getting the religious doctrine right becomes a big deal, with people who get it wrong being identified as tools of the Bad Guy. So under monotheistic dualism, you can usually sample the canon in any documented milieu, and find meticulous pronouncements on precisely how to interpret it: what's permitted, and what's dangerous, heretical or blasphemous. This makes it easier to know what doctrine you're testing.

As for why it tests false, I'd say broadly there are two reasons, neither terribly controversial. Such faiths are ancient; the people who wrote the doctrines were often strong philosophers, diligent scholars and keen students of human nature, but they didn't have modern historiology and they had virtually no science. So they got their histories wrong in ways we no longer do, and they got their science wrong too... and in meticulously-documented doctrines, that becomes readily apparent.

In fairness to them, when they discovered doctrinal problems, they often tried to fix the issue. That's practical, even if it wasn't always honest -- because they'd often try to correct doctrine without admitting the errors of method that caused bad doctrine in the first place. Thus the same methods would cause new errors. But in a war between good and evil, the job of sacred canon is to fortify you morally and spiritually, so it's very hard for monotheistic dualists to change their canon, and they're often loathe to insult revered theologians either, so instead of putting a red line through bad work as scientists, journalists and legislators do today, they'd often try and mitigate it with exceptions and special pleading. In the short-term that makes a kind of political sense, but in the long term it can accumulate to some flip-flops that would be almost comical -- until you realise that such evasive, unaccountable U-turns were also messing with justice and human dignity.

Anyway, it happened serially in the past, and still happens today. That's what I alluded to when I said monotheistic dualism produces serially false doctrine: when it's testable (not all of it is), the falsehoods are visible through modern science or historiology, and realisation of falsehood can sometimes be seen through about-faces in theologians and clergy themselves.

So that's the basic idea.

I suppose in closing this post I want to emphasise that though I personally think religion misguided, this is not my attempt as an atheist to tell all religions they're wrong or silly or wicked. My interest here is much more in the development of human thought, and monotheistic dualism has particular challenges, and this is how I understand it has tried to meet them. It has led to some conspicuous epistemological artefacts that may do nothing for the authority of its doctrines, but I'm not here to laugh at that... I'm just observing that it's so. If there were a 'so what' to this post it's that I think monotheistic dualists have to be very careful in how they manage issues of justice and morality, because they tend to get very black-and-white without acknowledging the serial ignorance of their methods.

But over to you, dear member. Questions, comments, examples, criticisms, rebuttals... as you like.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 2:49:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I have limited time today, Ruv, but I will read over this soon and hope some other members will pick up my slack until I'm able. Until then:

Bump.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 7:02:14 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
This is a bit of an aside, but in regard to dualism, I believe that's always been endemic of the way humanity has perceived reality. Because it's a natural inclination resulting from the way the human brain 'thinks'. That is we compare-contrast-compare-contrast until we can contextualize the new information, with the contextualized information that we already have. And then we can evaluate it according to our needs and desires.

To put it more simply, human cultures all over the world, and in all different time periods, have 'divided themselves up' into two dichotomous 'spirit-natures'. The Inuits in the Aleutian Islands and the Eskimos across North America perceived all human beings as members of either within the bird clan or the fish clan. That is they aligned with the "spirit" of the realm above the earth, or the spirit of the realm below the earth. And which, depended on the circumstances of the moment. This was not a quality assessment; good or bad/enemy of friend. But simply a conceptual recognition of the elemental, binary differences that exist between people, and between the natural realms of existence that the people live with.

Eastern philosophical traditions perceive reality through the dichotomous forces of Yin and Yang. Forces which flow through and define the natures of all people, places, things, and circumstances. And here, again, Yin and Yang are not value assessments, but just the conceptual recognition of two innate, existential opposite forces.

And many other primitive cultures have expressed a similar fundamental recognition of these elementary perceptual opposites. Such that Christianity and Islam are not at all unique in this. What is, perhaps, unique is the determination with which Christianity and Islam have endowed those elemental opposites with antithetical values. And from my way of thinking, therein lies the toxic flaw in their particular philosophical expression of perceived duality.

In both the eastern and Inuit concepts of existential duality, one can be of one nature relative to one person or circumstance, while simultaneously being of the opposite nature relative to another. For example, I may be the "fish spirit" to your "bird spirit" when we meet, this day. And yet as another person happens to join us, we both may be of the same spirit being as he. You and I may clash, either in a friendly way, or not, and yet we will both feel a kinship with the third person just joining us. The point being that the conceptual duality is not a "good/bad" equivalent. They are simply the recognition of opposing 'natures'. (Same as with Yin and Yang.)

But in Christianity, and Islam, the duality our minds perceive in the world around us are being forced into a positive and negative value judgment. Different is not just different from me, it's also now "bad", to my "good". And it's this forced conceptual value assessment that places Christianity and Islam at enmity with every other religion (and non-religion) on Earth. Because to Christianity and Islam, other religions and philosophies are not just different, they are also "bad".
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 9:35:39 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 5:51:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
In another thread, I wrote:

At 7/23/2016 7:51:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:41:18 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
The only issue I have is your claim that a single Catholic doctrine has been shown to be wrong. But, that was only one small paragraph in your comprehensive post.
Actually, my claim was broader -- it's that all the testable doctrines of monotheistic dualism have been serially false. I wasn't thinking specifically about RC doctrine, but the whole body of belief from which Abrahamic thought has been built (and other monotheistic dualism like Zoroastrianism, which nobody else in-forum cares about. D)
But I think we might differ on what is doctrine (as opposed to what is canon) and what testable means. It's not directly relevant to this thread, but I think my definition of these terms would horrify you. :D

To which Skep replied:
At 7/25/2016 2:49:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
If you get the urge, I would be interested in seeing this topic explored (assuming others are interested).

This thread is broadly about what is a religious doctrine, what does it mean to test it, and what did I mean when I said that when you can test the doctrines of monotheistic dualism, they end up serially false.

First some definitions:

Doctrine: a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or belief system -- e.g. a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] (So a doctrine isn't simply religious canon, but incorporates how canon is selected, standardised, taught and officially interpreted.)

Monotheistic Dualism: In religion, dualism means the belief in two supreme opposed powers or gods, or sets of divine or demonic beings, that caused the world to exist. [https://www.britannica.com...] By 'monotheistic dualism' I simply meant belief in a creator God and an opposing Adversary whose conflict shapes causality and the human moral condition. This captures most but not all Christianity, plus most Islam and Zoroastrianism, but does not capture most Judaic thought.

For my definition of 'testing', members who know me to be an empiricist, pedant and geek may be unsurprised to see the following nerdy definition:

Test: Verification and validation are independent procedures used together for checking that a system meets specifications and fulfills its intended purpose. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Informally, validation of a body of thought is assurance that it meets its intended purpose transparently and accountably, while verification is assurance that it does so with appropriate accuracy and precision. The language I've used is from engineering, but there's an analogous definition in science, and we see versions of it turning up now in virtually all professional walks of life, from justice through to journalism, law enforcement and financial management -- it's essentially how we provide assurance on the probity of our thought in a professional environment.

So those are my definitions.

We can get lost in all the pedantic jargon. None of it is necessary. Here is one bit of Christian doctrine on which much of the Christian world-view is built.

Jer 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Rom 3:10 - As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 - There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 - They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

The moral depravity of Man.

Verification and validation.

The Bible tells us why we are morally bankrupt, and we see conformation of this in our life observations and within our own hearts. Is the Bible's doctrine on the nature of man incorrect? Are people basically good?

Beware of the snake oil salesman who will want to group Mother Teresa in with Osama Bin Laden as "religious monotheistic dualists" and judge them as if that self-appointed title applies to them equally.

And be very careful with claims that the religious authors did not know science and made "mistakes". For example, a "modern" man today saying that the author of Genesis didn't know that the moon produced no light of its own, himself refers to the moon as a light but excuses himself for some ad-hoc reason. Or will re-interpret the doctrine in the most inane way, and then claim there is an error in the passage.

Be vigilant, and you will see those tactics no display here in this very thread.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 10:05:49 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 9:35:39 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 5:51:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
In another thread, I wrote:

At 7/23/2016 7:51:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:41:18 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
The only issue I have is your claim that a single Catholic doctrine has been shown to be wrong. But, that was only one small paragraph in your comprehensive post.
Actually, my claim was broader -- it's that all the testable doctrines of monotheistic dualism have been serially false. I wasn't thinking specifically about RC doctrine, but the whole body of belief from which Abrahamic thought has been built (and other monotheistic dualism like Zoroastrianism, which nobody else in-forum cares about. D)
But I think we might differ on what is doctrine (as opposed to what is canon) and what testable means. It's not directly relevant to this thread, but I think my definition of these terms would horrify you. :D

To which Skep replied:
At 7/25/2016 2:49:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
If you get the urge, I would be interested in seeing this topic explored (assuming others are interested).

This thread is broadly about what is a religious doctrine, what does it mean to test it, and what did I mean when I said that when you can test the doctrines of monotheistic dualism, they end up serially false.

First some definitions:

Doctrine: a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or belief system -- e.g. a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] (So a doctrine isn't simply religious canon, but incorporates how canon is selected, standardised, taught and officially interpreted.)

Monotheistic Dualism: In religion, dualism means the belief in two supreme opposed powers or gods, or sets of divine or demonic beings, that caused the world to exist. [https://www.britannica.com...] By 'monotheistic dualism' I simply meant belief in a creator God and an opposing Adversary whose conflict shapes causality and the human moral condition. This captures most but not all Christianity, plus most Islam and Zoroastrianism, but does not capture most Judaic thought.

For my definition of 'testing', members who know me to be an empiricist, pedant and geek may be unsurprised to see the following nerdy definition:

Test: Verification and validation are independent procedures used together for checking that a system meets specifications and fulfills its intended purpose. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Informally, validation of a body of thought is assurance that it meets its intended purpose transparently and accountably, while verification is assurance that it does so with appropriate accuracy and precision. The language I've used is from engineering, but there's an analogous definition in science, and we see versions of it turning up now in virtually all professional walks of life, from justice through to journalism, law enforcement and financial management -- it's essentially how we provide assurance on the probity of our thought in a professional environment.

So those are my definitions.

We can get lost in all the pedantic jargon. None of it is necessary. Here is one bit of Christian doctrine on which much of the Christian world-view is built.

Jer 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Rom 3:10 - As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 - There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 - They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

The moral depravity of Man.

Verification and validation.

The Bible tells us why we are morally bankrupt, and we see conformation of this in our life observations and within our own hearts. Is the Bible's doctrine on the nature of man incorrect? Are people basically good?

Beware of the snake oil salesman who will want to group Mother Teresa in with Osama Bin Laden as "religious monotheistic dualists" and judge them as if that self-appointed title applies to them equally.

And be very careful with claims that the religious authors did not know science and made "mistakes". For example, a "modern" man today saying that the author of Genesis didn't know that the moon produced no light of its own, himself refers to the moon as a light but excuses himself for some ad-hoc reason. Or will re-interpret the doctrine in the most inane way, and then claim there is an error in the passage.

Be vigilant, and you will see those tactics no display here in this very thread.
And we find people like thang quoting a book written by ignorant bronze age farmers as if it's content has some intrinsic worth.
Allegedly, according to thang, his god planted trees in lava on a planet without an atmosphere or sunlight and they thrived.
He allegedly obtains this information from the same book he quotes as authoritative in other matters.
Yes I know, it doesn't make any sense. But there you have it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 10:53:56 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 10:05:49 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/26/2016 9:35:39 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 5:51:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
In another thread, I wrote:

At 7/23/2016 7:51:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:41:18 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
The only issue I have is your claim that a single Catholic doctrine has been shown to be wrong. But, that was only one small paragraph in your comprehensive post.
Actually, my claim was broader -- it's that all the testable doctrines of monotheistic dualism have been serially false. I wasn't thinking specifically about RC doctrine, but the whole body of belief from which Abrahamic thought has been built (and other monotheistic dualism like Zoroastrianism, which nobody else in-forum cares about. D)
But I think we might differ on what is doctrine (as opposed to what is canon) and what testable means. It's not directly relevant to this thread, but I think my definition of these terms would horrify you. :D

To which Skep replied:
At 7/25/2016 2:49:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
If you get the urge, I would be interested in seeing this topic explored (assuming others are interested).

This thread is broadly about what is a religious doctrine, what does it mean to test it, and what did I mean when I said that when you can test the doctrines of monotheistic dualism, they end up serially false.

First some definitions:

Doctrine: a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or belief system -- e.g. a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] (So a doctrine isn't simply religious canon, but incorporates how canon is selected, standardised, taught and officially interpreted.)

Monotheistic Dualism: In religion, dualism means the belief in two supreme opposed powers or gods, or sets of divine or demonic beings, that caused the world to exist. [https://www.britannica.com...] By 'monotheistic dualism' I simply meant belief in a creator God and an opposing Adversary whose conflict shapes causality and the human moral condition. This captures most but not all Christianity, plus most Islam and Zoroastrianism, but does not capture most Judaic thought.

For my definition of 'testing', members who know me to be an empiricist, pedant and geek may be unsurprised to see the following nerdy definition:

Test: Verification and validation are independent procedures used together for checking that a system meets specifications and fulfills its intended purpose. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Informally, validation of a body of thought is assurance that it meets its intended purpose transparently and accountably, while verification is assurance that it does so with appropriate accuracy and precision. The language I've used is from engineering, but there's an analogous definition in science, and we see versions of it turning up now in virtually all professional walks of life, from justice through to journalism, law enforcement and financial management -- it's essentially how we provide assurance on the probity of our thought in a professional environment.

So those are my definitions.

We can get lost in all the pedantic jargon. None of it is necessary. Here is one bit of Christian doctrine on which much of the Christian world-view is built.

Jer 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Rom 3:10 - As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 - There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 - They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

The moral depravity of Man.

Verification and validation.

The Bible tells us why we are morally bankrupt, and we see conformation of this in our life observations and within our own hearts. Is the Bible's doctrine on the nature of man incorrect? Are people basically good?

Beware of the snake oil salesman who will want to group Mother Teresa in with Osama Bin Laden as "religious monotheistic dualists" and judge them as if that self-appointed title applies to them equally.

And be very careful with claims that the religious authors did not know science and made "mistakes". For example, a "modern" man today saying that the author of Genesis didn't know that the moon produced no light of its own, himself refers to the moon as a light but excuses himself for some ad-hoc reason. Or will re-interpret the doctrine in the most inane way, and then claim there is an error in the passage.

Be vigilant, and you will see those tactics no display here in this very thread.
And we find people like thang quoting a book written by ignorant bronze age farmers as if it's content has some intrinsic worth.
Allegedly, according to thang, his god planted trees in lava on a planet without an atmosphere or sunlight and they thrived.
He allegedly obtains this information from the same book he quotes as authoritative in other matters.
Yes I know, it doesn't make any sense. But there you have it.

lol. Yes, they know it doesn't make sense.

You gave up the -450 degree claim too easily bully. What happened?

So you've conceded that the Earth was not a ball of ice. Good. Now lets get you even closer to truth by making you concede that the Earth did not remain lava and in the interim, it had a temperature conducive to life. You are stupid and a troll so it will take some time, but as you already know, I always have time for you.

So now you insist that either the Earth was lava or ice right? No in between? Why? Because that would be logical, and logic is like arsenic to your argument. Thus, you have to submit your own arguments as mine, and pray that the Gentle Readers miss your ruse. Have they ever?

If your case were strong, you wouldn't need to lie about my position. You wouldn't need to dodge questions. You wouldn't need spin.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 11:00:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 9:35:39 AM, ethang5 wrote:
We can get lost in all the pedantic jargon. None of it is necessary.
Ethan, in this thread I'll be using the definitions I chose. You're welcome to ask questions about them, but if you want a substantive response from me, you'll need to understand and use them, and engage the line of argument I'm making.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 11:06:49 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 10:53:56 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 10:05:49 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/26/2016 9:35:39 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 5:51:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
In another thread, I wrote:

At 7/23/2016 7:51:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:41:18 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
The only issue I have is your claim that a single Catholic doctrine has been shown to be wrong. But, that was only one small paragraph in your comprehensive post.
Actually, my claim was broader -- it's that all the testable doctrines of monotheistic dualism have been serially false. I wasn't thinking specifically about RC doctrine, but the whole body of belief from which Abrahamic thought has been built (and other monotheistic dualism like Zoroastrianism, which nobody else in-forum cares about. D)
But I think we might differ on what is doctrine (as opposed to what is canon) and what testable means. It's not directly relevant to this thread, but I think my definition of these terms would horrify you. :D

To which Skep replied:
At 7/25/2016 2:49:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
If you get the urge, I would be interested in seeing this topic explored (assuming others are interested).

This thread is broadly about what is a religious doctrine, what does it mean to test it, and what did I mean when I said that when you can test the doctrines of monotheistic dualism, they end up serially false.

First some definitions:

Doctrine: a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or belief system -- e.g. a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] (So a doctrine isn't simply religious canon, but incorporates how canon is selected, standardised, taught and officially interpreted.)

Monotheistic Dualism: In religion, dualism means the belief in two supreme opposed powers or gods, or sets of divine or demonic beings, that caused the world to exist. [https://www.britannica.com...] By 'monotheistic dualism' I simply meant belief in a creator God and an opposing Adversary whose conflict shapes causality and the human moral condition. This captures most but not all Christianity, plus most Islam and Zoroastrianism, but does not capture most Judaic thought.

For my definition of 'testing', members who know me to be an empiricist, pedant and geek may be unsurprised to see the following nerdy definition:

Test: Verification and validation are independent procedures used together for checking that a system meets specifications and fulfills its intended purpose. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Informally, validation of a body of thought is assurance that it meets its intended purpose transparently and accountably, while verification is assurance that it does so with appropriate accuracy and precision. The language I've used is from engineering, but there's an analogous definition in science, and we see versions of it turning up now in virtually all professional walks of life, from justice through to journalism, law enforcement and financial management -- it's essentially how we provide assurance on the probity of our thought in a professional environment.

So those are my definitions.

We can get lost in all the pedantic jargon. None of it is necessary. Here is one bit of Christian doctrine on which much of the Christian world-view is built.

Jer 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Rom 3:10 - As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 - There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 - They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

The moral depravity of Man.

Verification and validation.

The Bible tells us why we are morally bankrupt, and we see conformation of this in our life observations and within our own hearts. Is the Bible's doctrine on the nature of man incorrect? Are people basically good?

Beware of the snake oil salesman who will want to group Mother Teresa in with Osama Bin Laden as "religious monotheistic dualists" and judge them as if that self-appointed title applies to them equally.

And be very careful with claims that the religious authors did not know science and made "mistakes". For example, a "modern" man today saying that the author of Genesis didn't know that the moon produced no light of its own, himself refers to the moon as a light but excuses himself for some ad-hoc reason. Or will re-interpret the doctrine in the most inane way, and then claim there is an error in the passage.

Be vigilant, and you will see those tactics no display here in this very thread.
And we find people like thang quoting a book written by ignorant bronze age farmers as if it's content has some intrinsic worth.
Allegedly, according to thang, his god planted trees in lava on a planet without an atmosphere or sunlight and they thrived.
He allegedly obtains this information from the same book he quotes as authoritative in other matters.
Yes I know, it doesn't make any sense. But there you have it.

lol. Yes, they know it doesn't make sense.

You gave up the -450 degree claim too easily bully. What happened?

So you've conceded that the Earth was not a ball of ice. Good. Now lets get you even closer to truth by making you concede that the Earth did not remain lava and in the interim, it had a temperature conducive to life. You are stupid and a troll so it will take some time, but as you already know, I always have time for you.

So now you insist that either the Earth was lava or ice right? No in between? Why? Because that would be logical, and logic is like arsenic to your argument. Thus, you have to submit your own arguments as mine, and pray that the Gentle Readers miss your ruse. Have they ever?

If your case were strong, you wouldn't need to lie about my position. You wouldn't need to dodge questions. You wouldn't need spin.
I'm just retelling your story sweety and mocking it unmercifully.
You see it doesn't matter whether your god planted trees in an iceball without sunlight as your book claims or in a lavaball without atmosphere or sunlight, as you claim, it is ridiculous beyond belief.
But I'm happy for people of your disposition to believe such nonsense, you just shouldn't be allowed to present it as anything other than fantasy.
And of course you can't.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 4:44:29 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 11:00:27 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/26/2016 9:35:39 AM, ethang5 wrote:

We can get lost in all the pedantic jargon. None of it is necessary.

Ethan, in this thread I'll be using the definitions I chose.

Of course you will. How else would your position appear to be reasonable? But how does that relate to me? Notice my post was not addressed to you.

You're welcome to ask questions about them, but if you want a substantive response from me, you'll need to understand and use them, and engage the line of argument I'm making.

OK. I'll let you know when I want a pedantic response from you.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 4:56:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 11:06:49 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/26/2016 10:53:56 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Allegedly, according to thang, his god planted trees in lava on a planet without an atmosphere or sunlight and they thrived.
He allegedly obtains this information from the same book he quotes as authoritative in other matters.
Yes I know, it doesn't make any sense. But there you have it.

lol. Yes, they know it doesn't make sense.

You gave up the -450 degree claim too easily bully. What happened?

So you've conceded that the Earth was not a ball of ice. Good. Now lets get you even closer to truth by making you concede that the Earth did not remain lava and in the interim, it had a temperature conducive to life. You are stupid and a troll so it will take some time, but as you already know, I always have time for you.

So now you insist that either the Earth was lava or ice right? No in between? Why? Because that would be logical, and logic is like arsenic to your argument. Thus, you have to submit your own arguments as mine, and pray that the Gentle Readers miss your ruse. Have they ever?

If your case were strong, you wouldn't need to lie about my position. You wouldn't need to dodge questions. You wouldn't need spin.

I'm just retelling your story sweety and mocking it unmercifully.

We've known you're lying. And you can't mock what you don't know.

You see it doesn't matter whether your god planted trees in an iceball without sunlight as your book claims....

lol, now that I've beaten you black and blue and made you look like science buffoon, it doesn't matter?

...or in a lavaball without atmosphere or sunlight, as you claim, it is ridiculous beyond belief.

Ah atheism. Whatever it doesn't understand, becomes ridiculous. bully - "I don't care what is true, I just like mocking." This is the "thinking person".

But I'm happy for people of your disposition to believe such nonsense, you just shouldn't be allowed to present it as anything other than fantasy.

So you get on and lie? If it is fantasy, why must you lie when you say what it is? Because if you told the truth, you would have no claim of it being ridiculous beyond belief. You have to lie because your case is lame.

And of course you can't.

If I couldn't you wouldn't have to lie. You would just need me to present it and then point out the holes. But you have to lie because my actual case is strong, and you have no answer for it. So the Bible says the Earth coalesced from formless gas and was formless and void. It cooled to the point where and atmosphere formed and plants appeared.

Your interpretation is, "The Bible says it was a ball of ice". And you actually believe people don't see you as a moron.

Tell us again about the electric lights in the first century a.d.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 6:11:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 4:56:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 11:06:49 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/26/2016 10:53:56 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Allegedly, according to thang, his god planted trees in lava on a planet without an atmosphere or sunlight and they thrived.
He allegedly obtains this information from the same book he quotes as authoritative in other matters.
Yes I know, it doesn't make any sense. But there you have it.

lol. Yes, they know it doesn't make sense.

You gave up the -450 degree claim too easily bully. What happened?

So you've conceded that the Earth was not a ball of ice. Good. Now lets get you even closer to truth by making you concede that the Earth did not remain lava and in the interim, it had a temperature conducive to life. You are stupid and a troll so it will take some time, but as you already know, I always have time for you.

So now you insist that either the Earth was lava or ice right? No in between? Why? Because that would be logical, and logic is like arsenic to your argument. Thus, you have to submit your own arguments as mine, and pray that the Gentle Readers miss your ruse. Have they ever?

If your case were strong, you wouldn't need to lie about my position. You wouldn't need to dodge questions. You wouldn't need spin.

I'm just retelling your story sweety and mocking it unmercifully.

We've known you're lying. And you can't mock what you don't know.

You see it doesn't matter whether your god planted trees in an iceball without sunlight as your book claims....

lol, now that I've beaten you black and blue and made you look like science buffoon, it doesn't matter?

...or in a lavaball without atmosphere or sunlight, as you claim, it is ridiculous beyond belief.

Ah atheism. Whatever it doesn't understand, becomes ridiculous. bully - "I don't care what is true, I just like mocking." This is the "thinking person".

But I'm happy for people of your disposition to believe such nonsense, you just shouldn't be allowed to present it as anything other than fantasy.

So you get on and lie? If it is fantasy, why must you lie when you say what it is? Because if you told the truth, you would have no claim of it being ridiculous beyond belief. You have to lie because your case is lame.

And of course you can't.

If I couldn't you wouldn't have to lie. You would just need me to present it and then point out the holes. But you have to lie because my actual case is strong, and you have no answer for it. So the Bible says the Earth coalesced from formless gas and was formless and void. It cooled to the point where and atmosphere formed and plants appeared.

Your interpretation is, "The Bible says it was a ball of ice". And you actually believe people don't see you as a moron.

The word Bulproof used was 'sunlight'. Your poor reading skills is a big handicap, you read it as 'sun'.
Plants need 'sunlight' to facilitate photosynthesis which you are obviously unaware off because you believe molten lava kept the earth hot which helped plants according to you. Get an education.!!

Your knowledge of science must come from the bible. The level of science and math in the bible is below a grade 4 level.

In Genesis plants and vegetation were created on the 3rd day. The sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day which is a 1000 years later. How did the plants and vegetation survive without sunlight for a 1000 years? Molten lava is not a substitute for sunlight which plants need for photosynthesis.

Tell us again about the electric lights in the first century a.d.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 6:12:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 4:56:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 11:06:49 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/26/2016 10:53:56 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Allegedly, according to thang, his god planted trees in lava on a planet without an atmosphere or sunlight and they thrived.
He allegedly obtains this information from the same book he quotes as authoritative in other matters.
Yes I know, it doesn't make any sense. But there you have it.

lol. Yes, they know it doesn't make sense.

You gave up the -450 degree claim too easily bully. What happened?

So you've conceded that the Earth was not a ball of ice. Good. Now lets get you even closer to truth by making you concede that the Earth did not remain lava and in the interim, it had a temperature conducive to life. You are stupid and a troll so it will take some time, but as you already know, I always have time for you.

So now you insist that either the Earth was lava or ice right? No in between? Why? Because that would be logical, and logic is like arsenic to your argument. Thus, you have to submit your own arguments as mine, and pray that the Gentle Readers miss your ruse. Have they ever?

If your case were strong, you wouldn't need to lie about my position. You wouldn't need to dodge questions. You wouldn't need spin.

I'm just retelling your story sweety and mocking it unmercifully.

We've known you're lying. And you can't mock what you don't know.

You see it doesn't matter whether your god planted trees in an iceball without sunlight as your book claims....

lol, now that I've beaten you black and blue and made you look like science buffoon, it doesn't matter?

...or in a lavaball without atmosphere or sunlight, as you claim, it is ridiculous beyond belief.

Ah atheism. Whatever it doesn't understand, becomes ridiculous. bully - "I don't care what is true, I just like mocking." This is the "thinking person".

But I'm happy for people of your disposition to believe such nonsense, you just shouldn't be allowed to present it as anything other than fantasy.

So you get on and lie? If it is fantasy, why must you lie when you say what it is? Because if you told the truth, you would have no claim of it being ridiculous beyond belief. You have to lie because your case is lame.

And of course you can't.

If I couldn't you wouldn't have to lie. You would just need me to present it and then point out the holes. But you have to lie because my actual case is strong, and you have no answer for it. So the Bible says the Earth coalesced from formless gas and was formless and void. It cooled to the point where and atmosphere formed and plants appeared.

Your interpretation is, "The Bible says it was a ball of ice". And you actually believe people don't see you as a moron.

Tell us again about the electric lights in the first century a.d.
As usual your value as comic entertainment has run it's course, perhaps I'll look for your stupidity in another thread on another day.
It's been fun thang.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 6:32:56 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 4:44:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 11:00:27 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/26/2016 9:35:39 AM, ethang5 wrote:
We can get lost in all the pedantic jargon. None of it is necessary.
Ethan, in this thread I'll be using the definitions I chose.
how does that relate to me?
I have no idea. I'd suggest that's for you to work out.

Notice my post was not addressed to you.
I haven't been reading all your posts in this thread, Ethan, and only replied to the one that appeared in my notification feed, which apparently replied to my post and quoted my definitions, only to dismiss them and offer your opinion on a topic you seem not to have read very carefully, did not subsequently reference, and did not understand.

You're welcome to ask questions about them, but if you want a substantive response from me, you'll need to understand and use them, and engage the line of argument I'm making.
OK.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 2:29:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 6:11:08 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/26/2016 4:56:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:

The word Bulproof used was 'sunlight'. Your poor reading skills is a big handicap, you read it as 'sun'.

Lol. Yeah, bully meant sunlight, not sun. As we can have one without the other. Makes sense.

Plants need 'sunlight' to facilitate photosynthesis which you are obviously unaware off because.....

If you knew science, you would know that plants did not begin with the ability to manufacture food using sunlight. Chlorophyll came much later. You are science illiterate, what makes you think you can speak sensibly about it?

...you believe molten lava kept the earth hot which helped plants according to you. Get an education.!!

I will give you one instead. I did not say the lava helped the plants. That is just your poor reading comprehension. I said the Earth was not covered in ice because it had to cool from being a ball of lava. I would tell you to get an education but you have to able to read first.

Your knowledge of science must come from the bible. The level of science and math in the bible is below a grade 4 level.

Yet the Bible knows more than you do about it. For example, you didn't know that plants evolved chlorophyll and that the first plants didn't have it. See, it's easy to just make stupid statements, I can show how yours are stupid.

In Genesis plants and vegetation were created on the 3rd day. The sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day which is a 1000 years later.

Oh wait. Do you now believe the "day" meant something other than 24 hours?

How did the plants and vegetation survive without sunlight for a 1000 years?

Do you really believe we are talking about individual plants?? Do you think for evolution a 1000 years is long? Not a single stage in plant evolution lasted less than a thousand years. Wow. The amazing thing is not that you are this ignorant, but that you are militant while being this ignorant.

Molten lava is not a substitute for sunlight which plants need for photosynthesis.

Ok, when I claim that lava is a substitute for sunlight, I'll consider this objection.

Tell us again about the electric lights in the first century a.d.

C'mon, it's your pal bully advancing this clunker. Surely you support it?
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 2:32:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 6:12:06 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/26/2016 4:56:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 11:06:49 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/26/2016 10:53:56 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Allegedly, according to thang, his god planted trees in lava on a planet without an atmosphere or sunlight and they thrived.
He allegedly obtains this information from the same book he quotes as authoritative in other matters.
Yes I know, it doesn't make any sense. But there you have it.

lol. Yes, they know it doesn't make sense.

You gave up the -450 degree claim too easily bully. What happened?

So you've conceded that the Earth was not a ball of ice. Good. Now lets get you even closer to truth by making you concede that the Earth did not remain lava and in the interim, it had a temperature conducive to life. You are stupid and a troll so it will take some time, but as you already know, I always have time for you.

So now you insist that either the Earth was lava or ice right? No in between? Why? Because that would be logical, and logic is like arsenic to your argument. Thus, you have to submit your own arguments as mine, and pray that the Gentle Readers miss your ruse. Have they ever?

If your case were strong, you wouldn't need to lie about my position. You wouldn't need to dodge questions. You wouldn't need spin.

I'm just retelling your story sweety and mocking it unmercifully.

We've known you're lying. And you can't mock what you don't know.

You see it doesn't matter whether your god planted trees in an iceball without sunlight as your book claims....

lol, now that I've beaten you black and blue and made you look like science buffoon, it doesn't matter?

...or in a lavaball without atmosphere or sunlight, as you claim, it is ridiculous beyond belief.

Ah atheism. Whatever it doesn't understand, becomes ridiculous. bully - "I don't care what is true, I just like mocking." This is the "thinking person".

But I'm happy for people of your disposition to believe such nonsense, you just shouldn't be allowed to present it as anything other than fantasy.

So you get on and lie? If it is fantasy, why must you lie when you say what it is? Because if you told the truth, you would have no claim of it being ridiculous beyond belief. You have to lie because your case is lame.

And of course you can't.

If I couldn't you wouldn't have to lie. You would just need me to present it and then point out the holes. But you have to lie because my actual case is strong, and you have no answer for it. So the Bible says the Earth coalesced from formless gas and was formless and void. It cooled to the point where and atmosphere formed and plants appeared.

Your interpretation is, "The Bible says it was a ball of ice". And you actually believe people don't see you as a moron.

Tell us again about the electric lights in the first century a.d.
As usual your value as comic entertainment has run it's course, perhaps I'll look for your stupidity in another thread on another day.

They're laughing bully. That part you got right.

It's been fun thang.

Same here "thinking man".
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 2:43:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 6:32:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/26/2016 4:44:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:

We can get lost in all the pedantic jargon. None of it is necessary.

Ethan, in this thread I'll be using the definitions I chose.

how does that relate to me?

I have no idea.

Then why post it to me? Are you unwell?

I'd suggest that's for you to work out.

lol. I suggest I throw it out as the incoherent babbling of a confused person.

Notice my post was not addressed to you.

I haven't been reading all your posts in this thread, Ethan, and only replied to the one that appeared in my notification feed, which apparently replied to my post and quoted my definitions, only to dismiss them and offer your opinion on a topic you seem not to have read very carefully, did not subsequently reference, and did not understand.

Yes, we're familiar with your bloated opinion of yourself. None-the-less, my post was not addressed to you.

You're welcome to ask questions about them, but if you want a substantive response from me, you'll need to understand and use them, and engage the line of argument I'm making.

OK. When I want a magniloquent response from you, I'll let you know.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 2:50:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 2:29:55 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 6:11:08 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/26/2016 4:56:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:

The word Bulproof used was 'sunlight'. Your poor reading skills is a big handicap, you read it as 'sun'.

Lol. Yeah, bully meant sunlight, not sun. As we can have one without the other. Makes sense.

And the sun was created on the 4th day which is a 1000 years after the plants and vegetation was created on the 3rd day each day being a 1000 years. You still haven't answered the question: How did the plants and vegetation survive with sunlight for a 1000 years? You should know molten lave is not a substitute for sunlight even if the bible doesn't know that.

Plants need 'sunlight' to facilitate photosynthesis which you are obviously unaware off because.....

If you knew science, you would know that plants did not begin with the ability to manufacture food using sunlight. Chlorophyll came much later. You are science illiterate, what makes you think you can speak sensibly about it?

...you believe molten lava kept the earth hot which helped plants according to you. Get an education.!!

I will give you one instead. I did not say the lava helped the plants. That is just your poor reading comprehension. I said the Earth was not covered in ice because it had to cool from being a ball of lava. I would tell you to get an education but you have to able to read first.

Your knowledge of science must come from the bible. The level of science and math in the bible is below a grade 4 level.

Yet the Bible knows more than you do about it. For example, you didn't know that plants evolved chlorophyll and that the first plants didn't have it. See, it's easy to just make stupid statements, I can show how yours are stupid.

In Genesis plants and vegetation were created on the 3rd day. The sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day which is a 1000 years later.

Oh wait. Do you now believe the "day" meant something other than 24 hours?

How did the plants and vegetation survive without sunlight for a 1000 years?

Do you really believe we are talking about individual plants?? Do you think for evolution a 1000 years is long? Not a single stage in plant evolution lasted less than a thousand years. Wow. The amazing thing is not that you are this ignorant, but that you are militant while being this ignorant.

Molten lava is not a substitute for sunlight which plants need for photosynthesis.

Ok, when I claim that lava is a substitute for sunlight, I'll consider this objection.

Tell us again about the electric lights in the first century a.d.

C'mon, it's your pal bully advancing this clunker. Surely you support it?
You are profoundly stupid and prone to petty arguments. How much brain damage did you suffer when your mommy flushed you down the toilet on your fathers insistence?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 3:08:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 2:43:06 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 6:32:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/26/2016 4:44:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:

We can get lost in all the pedantic jargon. None of it is necessary.

Ethan, in this thread I'll be using the definitions I chose.

how does that relate to me?

I have no idea.

Then why post it to me? Are you unwell?

I'd suggest that's for you to work out.

lol. I suggest I throw it out as the incoherent babbling of a confused person.

Notice my post was not addressed to you.

I haven't been reading all your posts in this thread, Ethan, and only replied to the one that appeared in my notification feed, which apparently replied to my post and quoted my definitions, only to dismiss them and offer your opinion on a topic you seem not to have read very carefully, did not subsequently reference, and did not understand.

Yes, we're familiar with your bloated opinion of yourself. None-the-less, my post was not addressed to you.

You're welcome to ask questions about them, but if you want a substantive response from me, you'll need to understand and use them, and engage the line of argument I'm making.

OK. When I want a magniloquent response from you, I'll let you know.

You are quite possibly the rudest, most egotistical person I've ever had the displeasure to interact with. It's obvious that if your parents tried to teach you manners they were sadly unsuccessful. If you have noting useful to say, say nothing. All you've managed to do is once again display your shocking lack of courtesy and anything resembling mutual respect for the other members of the forum.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 3:28:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 2:50:51 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/27/2016 2:29:55 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 6:11:08 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/26/2016 4:56:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:

The word Bulproof used was 'sunlight'. Your poor reading skills is a big handicap, you read it as 'sun'.

Lol. Yeah, bully meant sunlight, not sun. As we can have one without the other. Makes sense.

And the sun was created on the 4th day which is a 1000 years after the plants and vegetation was created on the 3rd day each day being a 1000 years.

You still haven't answered the question: How did the plants and vegetation survive with sunlight for a 1000 years? You should know molten lave is not a substitute for sunlight even if the bible doesn't know that.

Plants need 'sunlight' to facilitate photosynthesis which you are obviously unaware off because.....

If you knew science, you would know that plants did not begin with the ability to manufacture food using sunlight. Chlorophyll came much later. You are science illiterate, what makes you think you can speak sensibly about it?

...you believe molten lava kept the earth hot which helped plants according to you. Get an education.!!

I will give you one instead. I did not say the lava helped the plants. That is just your poor reading comprehension. I said the Earth was not covered in ice because it had to cool from being a ball of lava. I would tell you to get an education but you have to able to read first.

Your knowledge of science must come from the bible. The level of science and math in the bible is below a grade 4 level.

Yet the Bible knows more than you do about it. For example, you didn't know that plants evolved chlorophyll and that the first plants didn't have it. See, it's easy to just make stupid statements, I can show how yours are stupid.

In Genesis plants and vegetation were created on the 3rd day. The sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day which is a 1000 years later.

Oh wait. Do you now believe the "day" meant something other than 24 hours?

How did the plants and vegetation survive without sunlight for a 1000 years?

Do you really believe we are talking about individual plants?? Do you think for evolution a 1000 years is long? Not a single stage in plant evolution lasted less than a thousand years. Wow. The amazing thing is not that you are this ignorant, but that you are militant while being this ignorant.

Molten lava is not a substitute for sunlight which plants need for photosynthesis.

Ok, when I claim that lava is a substitute for sunlight, I'll consider this objection.

Tell us again about the electric lights in the first century a.d.

C'mon, it's your pal bully advancing this clunker. Surely you support it?
You are profoundly stupid and prone to petty arguments. How much brain damage did you suffer when your mommy flushed you down the toilet on your fathers insistence?

If you want me to reply to you, you have to read the post in which you post! I love trolls, but I only take a certain amount of stupidity.

Before you post, read the post to which you're responding. You aren't as cute in stupidity as you think you look.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 3:34:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Ruv, perhaps you could give some specific examples of doctrines which have failed and how they have been amended to mitigate this.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 3:38:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 3:08:43 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/27/2016 2:43:06 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 6:32:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/26/2016 4:44:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:

We can get lost in all the pedantic jargon. None of it is necessary.

Ethan, in this thread I'll be using the definitions I chose.

how does that relate to me?

I have no idea.

Then why post it to me? Are you unwell?

I'd suggest that's for you to work out.

lol. I suggest I throw it out as the incoherent babbling of a confused person.

Notice my post was not addressed to you.

I haven't been reading all your posts in this thread, Ethan, and only replied to the one that appeared in my notification feed, which apparently replied to my post and quoted my definitions, only to dismiss them and offer your opinion on a topic you seem not to have read very carefully, did not subsequently reference, and did not understand.

Yes, we're familiar with your bloated opinion of yourself. None-the-less, my post was not addressed to you.

You're welcome to ask questions about them, but if you want a substantive response from me, you'll need to understand and use them, and engage the line of argument I'm making.

OK. When I want a magniloquent response from you, I'll let you know.

You are quite possibly the rudest, most egotistical person I've ever had the displeasure to interact with. It's obvious that if your parents tried to teach you manners they were sadly unsuccessful. If you have noting useful to say, say nothing. All you've managed to do is once again display your shocking lack of courtesy and anything resembling mutual respect for the other members of the forum.

gharbage! I was wondering when you'd come to the rescue of your....ahem, ....special friend. But let me justify your view of me ok?

You are a hypocritical moron. You sashay onto the board spewing invectives and insulting Jesus whom you know believers on a religious board adore, and you will call someone else rude? Do you know of anything that could be more rude to a Christian than to have some idiotic moron spew vulgarity at Him?

I don't know which is more putrid, your unwarranted crass insults to people who have not insulted you in any way, or your stinking hypocrisy as you pretend you have one iota of decency in you. Ugh.

At least Ruv is deluded. You are conscious of your feces. If you think I am quite possibly the rudest, most egotistical person you've ever had the displeasure to interact with, you must have never stood before a mirror.

Otherwise, how you doin?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 3:42:28 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 3:38:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/27/2016 3:08:43 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/27/2016 2:43:06 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 6:32:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/26/2016 4:44:29 PM, ethang5 wrote:

We can get lost in all the pedantic jargon. None of it is necessary.

Ethan, in this thread I'll be using the definitions I chose.

how does that relate to me?

I have no idea.

Then why post it to me? Are you unwell?

I'd suggest that's for you to work out.

lol. I suggest I throw it out as the incoherent babbling of a confused person.

Notice my post was not addressed to you.

I haven't been reading all your posts in this thread, Ethan, and only replied to the one that appeared in my notification feed, which apparently replied to my post and quoted my definitions, only to dismiss them and offer your opinion on a topic you seem not to have read very carefully, did not subsequently reference, and did not understand.

Yes, we're familiar with your bloated opinion of yourself. None-the-less, my post was not addressed to you.

You're welcome to ask questions about them, but if you want a substantive response from me, you'll need to understand and use them, and engage the line of argument I'm making.

OK. When I want a magniloquent response from you, I'll let you know.

You are quite possibly the rudest, most egotistical person I've ever had the displeasure to interact with. It's obvious that if your parents tried to teach you manners they were sadly unsuccessful. If you have noting useful to say, say nothing. All you've managed to do is once again display your shocking lack of courtesy and anything resembling mutual respect for the other members of the forum.

gharbage! I was wondering when you'd come to the rescue of your....ahem, ....special friend. But let me justify your view of me ok?

And there you are, baseless innuendo instead of any actual response only further demonstrating your lack of couth.

You are a hypocritical moron. You sashay onto the board spewing invectives and insulting Jesus whom you know believers on a religious board adore, and you will call someone else rude? Do you know of anything that could be more rude to a Christian than to have some idiotic moron spew vulgarity at Him?

Please post where I have, to use your words, spewed any 'invectives' or insulted a character in your holy book. I don't think you'll find it anywhere.

I don't know which is more putrid, your unwarranted crass insults to people who have not insulted you in any way, or your stinking hypocrisy as you pretend you have one iota of decency in you. Ugh.

Once again, demonstrate where I have insulted anyone who has not insulted me in any way. You've made accusations, now present your evidence.

At least Ruv is deluded. You are conscious of your feces. If you think I am quite possibly the rudest, most egotistical person you've ever had the displeasure to interact with, you must have never stood before a mirror.

I would suggest that you follow your own advice. It might prove educational.

Otherwise, how you doin?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 4:10:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 3:28:26 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/27/2016 2:50:51 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/27/2016 2:29:55 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/26/2016 6:11:08 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/26/2016 4:56:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:

The word Bulproof used was 'sunlight'. Your poor reading skills is a big handicap, you read it as 'sun'.

Lol. Yeah, bully meant sunlight, not sun. As we can have one without the other. Makes sense.

And the sun was created on the 4th day which is a 1000 years after the plants and vegetation was created on the 3rd day each day being a 1000 years.

You still haven't answered the question: How did the plants and vegetation survive with sunlight for a 1000 years? You should know molten lave is not a substitute for sunlight even if the bible doesn't know that.

Plants need 'sunlight' to facilitate photosynthesis which you are obviously unaware off because.....

If you knew science, you would know that plants did not begin with the ability to manufacture food using sunlight. Chlorophyll came much later. You are science illiterate, what makes you think you can speak sensibly about it?

...you believe molten lava kept the earth hot which helped plants according to you. Get an education.!!

I will give you one instead. I did not say the lava helped the plants. That is just your poor reading comprehension. I said the Earth was not covered in ice because it had to cool from being a ball of lava. I would tell you to get an education but you have to able to read first.

You said the lava kept the earth warn. The question yiu were asked was how plants could survive without sunlight and in below freezing temperatures. Your answer to both was lava. Which is ridiculous.

Your knowledge of science must come from the bible. The level of science and math in the bible is below a grade 4 level.

Yet the Bible knows more than you do about it. For example, you didn't know that plants evolved chlorophyll and that the first plants didn't have it. See, it's easy to just make stupid statements, I can show how yours are stupid.

In Genesis plants and vegetation were created on the 3rd day. The sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day which is a 1000 years later.

Oh wait. Do you now believe the "day" meant something other than 24 hours?

How did the plants and vegetation survive without sunlight for a 1000 years?

Do you really believe we are talking about individual plants?? Do you think for evolution a 1000 years is long? Not a single stage in plant evolution lasted less than a thousand years. Wow. The amazing thing is not that you are this ignorant, but that you are militant while being this ignorant.

The bible puts creation at 6000 years which would be 10,000 years today. But photosynthesis was developed by plants some 1.5 billion years ago picked up from early bacteria that first developed it.

Molten lava is not a substitute for sunlight which plants need for photosynthesis.

Ok, when I claim that lava is a substitute for sunlight, I'll consider this objection.

Tell us again about the electric lights in the first century a.d.

C'mon, it's your pal bully advancing this clunker. Surely you support it?
You are profoundly stupid and prone to petty arguments. How much brain damage did you suffer when your mommy flushed you down the toilet on your fathers insistence?

If you want me to reply to you, you have to read the post in which you post! I love trolls, but I only take a certain amount of stupidity.

Before you post, read the post to which you're responding. You aren't as cute in stupidity as you think you look.
You have responded to every question with stupidity and arguments from ignorance. You come from a very backward country. Why are you resisting all attempts to educate you? Are you mentally challenged?
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 5:29:14 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 3:42:28 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/27/2016 3:38:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:

We can get lost in all the pedantic jargon. None of it is necessary.

Ethan, in this thread I'll be using the definitions I chose.

how does that relate to me?

I have no idea.

Then why post it to me? Are you unwell?

You are quite possibly the rudest, most egotistical person I've ever had the displeasure to interact with. It's obvious that if your parents tried to teach you manners they were sadly unsuccessful. If you have noting useful to say, say nothing. All you've managed to do is once again display your shocking lack of courtesy and anything resembling mutual respect for the other members of the forum.

gharbage! I was wondering when you'd come to the rescue of your....ahem, ....special friend. But let me justify your view of me ok?

And there you are, baseless innuendo instead of any actual response only further demonstrating your lack of couth.

Why is it innuendo? Isn't he your special friend? You come running to his aid and always praise his posts. You don't do that with anyone else. There is no reason to be ashamed of your lifestyle choice.

You are a hypocritical moron. You sashay onto the board spewing invectives and insulting Jesus whom you know believers on a religious board adore, and you will call someone else rude? Do you know of anything that could be more rude to a Christian than to have some idiotic moron spew vulgarity at Him?

Please post where I have, to use your words, spewed any 'invectives' or insulted a character in your holy book. I don't think you'll find it anywhere.

Wait for it......

I don't know which is more putrid, your unwarranted crass insults to people who have not insulted you in any way, or your stinking hypocrisy as you pretend you have one iota of decency in you. Ugh.

Once again, demonstrate where I have insulted anyone who has not insulted me in any way.

Bingo!!!

You only insult people who insult you. Just being a christian "insults" you. Give me a break. I save special barbs of Ruv as he is smarmy with his insults. Bully for example, will just come out and say he thinks you're dumb. Ruv will first redefine "dumb" post tons of useless bloated verbage about his opinion about it, and then insult you underhandedly. It's sleazy. And all the while he's oozing oil from every pore.

You've made accusations, now present your evidence.

With your caveat that they insulted you first, why? You'll just excuse yourself and deny that anyone else can use that excuse.

At least Ruv is deluded. You are conscious of your feces. If you think I am quite possibly the rudest, most egotistical person you've ever had the displeasure to interact with, you must have never stood before a mirror. Or interacted with Ruv.

I would suggest that you follow your own advice. It might prove educational.

You told me what you think of me, I told you what I think of you. Deal with it.

Otherwise, how you doin?

Not too well huh?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:24:05 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/27/2016 3:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Ruv, perhaps you could give some specific examples of doctrines which have failed and how they have been amended to mitigate this.

That would've been my next step, Skep. :D At first, I was waiting for you. Then I got sick, so sorry for delay. Is there a particular monotheistic dualist faith you're interested in? We could focus on that.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 2:09:31 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:24:05 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/27/2016 3:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Ruv, perhaps you could give some specific examples of doctrines which have failed and how they have been amended to mitigate this.

That would've been my next step, Skep. :D At first, I was waiting for you. Then I got sick, so sorry for delay. Is there a particular monotheistic dualist faith you're interested in? We could focus on that.

No worries, Ruv. I hope you're feeling better. I think Christianity or Islam would be relevant to this forum. Although, I would be able to contribute more to a discussion on Christianity.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 4:07:34 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 2:09:31 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:24:05 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/27/2016 3:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Ruv, perhaps you could give some specific examples of doctrines which have failed and how they have been amended to mitigate this.
That would've been my next step, Skep. :D At first, I was waiting for you. Then I got sick, so sorry for delay. Is there a particular monotheistic dualist faith you're interested in? We could focus on that.
No worries, Ruv. I hope you're feeling better. I think Christianity or Islam would be relevant to this forum. Although, I would be able to contribute more to a discussion on Christianity.

Let's start with Christianity then.

So, there's more than one Christian doctrine -- essentially, every sect has its own. But the doctrines of Christian dualism require a common core, in which I would generally include:

1) A world made perfect by a perfect, eternal being -- God;
2) A rebellious nemesis seeking to corrupt that perfection -- Satan;
3) The creation of man as an image of perfection -- Eden;
4) A fall from grace, precipitating human misery, confusion and strife -- Sin;
5) Revelations from God to the Jews, foretelling the coming of a messiah meant to deliver humanity from their own self-created misery -- let me borrow the term 'Annunciation' for that, though it has normally more specific meaning in Christian tradition;
6) The arrival of that messiah, with insights and wonders presaging deliverance, and promising eternal life in a primitive, perfect state -- Jesus, with promises of Redemption and Heaven;
7) Popular rejection and betrayal of the messiah as a symptom of overwhelming sin -- Betrayal
8) The messiah's death, resurrection and promise to return in future -- Armageddon;
9) The departure of eyewitnesses and intimates as messengers to spread this message -- Apostles; and finally
10) The transmission of the Apostles' messages as received and repeatable tradition -- Scripture.

That core -- God, Satan, Eden, Sin, Annunciation, Jesus, Redemption, Heaven, Betrayal, Armageddon, Apostles and Scripture -- is essential to Christian dualism. Lose any part of it and you either lose Christ, lose dualism, or lose the argument of universal relevance. (Please poke me for specific examples as to why, if any are in doubt.)

Assuming that this is a necessary core, then if any of those elements are factually incorrect, or become repudiated by scholars from Christian dualist tradition, then Christian dualism itself is repudiated, and something has shifted in the faith.

I believe that has already occurred: that modern Christianity has largely lost its dualistic nature, because key elements of the core narrative are demonstrably false, because eminent Christian scholars know that the narrative no longer holds, and perhaps because in a more pluralistic world, many modern Christians would prefer not to live in the harshness of a dualistic paradigm anyway.

That's not to say that Christians are no longer monotheistic dualists. I think there are still strong traditions upholding those doctrines; it's just that many eminent Christian scholars no longer find it feasible to defend them scientifically, historically or morally, and I think most no longer really try.

If so, then we can safely say that regardless of whether adherents still believe it, Christian dualism tests false.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 3:51:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 4:07:34 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/1/2016 2:09:31 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:24:05 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/27/2016 3:34:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Ruv, perhaps you could give some specific examples of doctrines which have failed and how they have been amended to mitigate this.
That would've been my next step, Skep. :D At first, I was waiting for you. Then I got sick, so sorry for delay. Is there a particular monotheistic dualist faith you're interested in? We could focus on that.
No worries, Ruv. I hope you're feeling better. I think Christianity or Islam would be relevant to this forum. Although, I would be able to contribute more to a discussion on Christianity.

Let's start with Christianity then.

So, there's more than one Christian doctrine -- essentially, every sect has its own. But the doctrines of Christian dualism require a common core, in which I would generally include:

1) A world made perfect by a perfect, eternal being -- God;
2) A rebellious nemesis seeking to corrupt that perfection -- Satan;
3) The creation of man as an image of perfection -- Eden;
4) A fall from grace, precipitating human misery, confusion and strife -- Sin;
5) Revelations from God to the Jews, foretelling the coming of a messiah meant to deliver humanity from their own self-created misery -- let me borrow the term 'Annunciation' for that, though it has normally more specific meaning in Christian tradition;
6) The arrival of that messiah, with insights and wonders presaging deliverance, and promising eternal life in a primitive, perfect state -- Jesus, with promises of Redemption and Heaven;
7) Popular rejection and betrayal of the messiah as a symptom of overwhelming sin -- Betrayal
8) The messiah's death, resurrection and promise to return in future -- Armageddon;
9) The departure of eyewitnesses and intimates as messengers to spread this message -- Apostles; and finally
10) The transmission of the Apostles' messages as received and repeatable tradition -- Scripture.

That core -- God, Satan, Eden, Sin, Annunciation, Jesus, Redemption, Heaven, Betrayal, Armageddon, Apostles and Scripture -- is essential to Christian dualism. Lose any part of it and you either lose Christ, lose dualism, or lose the argument of universal relevance. (Please poke me for specific examples as to why, if any are in doubt.)

Assuming that this is a necessary core, then if any of those elements are factually incorrect, or become repudiated by scholars from Christian dualist tradition, then Christian dualism itself is repudiated, and something has shifted in the faith.

I believe that has already occurred: that modern Christianity has largely lost its dualistic nature, because key elements of the core narrative are demonstrably false, because eminent Christian scholars know that the narrative no longer holds, and perhaps because in a more pluralistic world, many modern Christians would prefer not to live in the harshness of a dualistic paradigm anyway.

That's not to say that Christians are no longer monotheistic dualists. I think there are still strong traditions upholding those doctrines; it's just that many eminent Christian scholars no longer find it feasible to defend them scientifically, historically or morally, and I think most no longer really try.

If so, then we can safely say that regardless of whether adherents still believe it, Christian dualism tests false.

It seems most scholars favor a liberal view of the Bible, and this is a fairly new view (since 1850 or so). I imagine this is the modification of doctrine you're referring to. What I find interesting (or disturbing) is the massive disconnect between your average believer and most Christian scholars.

I am interested in specific failures of the elements you listed above. Some of them are obvious, but others are not so clear to me. I would guess I'm not the only one. :-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 8:41:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
The fact that science can prove the Santa Claus doesn't exist doesn't really mean anything to anyone. Nor does the fact that science can prove that Santa Clause is not watching over the behavior of children and making a list of who is naughty or nice, that will then effect the gifts they receive at Christmas .

"Doctrines" aren't objective mechanisms. So the fact that science can prove that they aren't valid predictable objective mechanisms is of no consequence to those who employ these kinds of ideological doctrines.

The only test that matters is how the application of the doctrine effects the adherent, and those around him, when it's used to determine the course of action he takes in his life. And since the imperatives being used to make that value assessment will be almost completely subjectively derived, objective verifications and tests are pretty much irrelevant.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 8:56:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 3:51:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/1/2016 4:07:34 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
The doctrines of Christian dualism require a common core, in which I would generally include:
1) A world made perfect by a perfect, eternal being -- God;
2) A rebellious nemesis seeking to corrupt that perfection -- Satan;
3) The creation of man as an image of perfection -- Eden;
4) A fall from grace, precipitating human misery, confusion and strife -- Sin;
5) Revelations from God to the Jews, foretelling the coming of a messiah meant to deliver humanity from their own self-created misery -- let me borrow the term 'Annunciation' for that, though it has normally more specific meaning in Christian tradition;
6) The arrival of that messiah, with insights and wonders presaging deliverance, and promising eternal life in a primitive, perfect state -- Jesus, with promises of Redemption and Heaven;
7) Popular rejection and betrayal of the messiah as a symptom of overwhelming sin -- Betrayal
8) The messiah's death, resurrection and promise to return in future -- Armageddon;
9) The departure of eyewitnesses and intimates as messengers to spread this message -- Apostles; and finally
10) The transmission of the Apostles' messages as received and repeatable tradition -- Scripture.
If any of those elements are factually incorrect, or become repudiated by scholars from Christian dualist tradition, then Christian dualism itself is repudiated, and something has shifted in the faith.
I believe that has already occurred: Christian dualism tests false.

It seems most scholars favor a liberal view of the Bible, and this is a fairly new view (since 1850 or so). I imagine this is the modification of doctrine you're referring to.
There's not really much choice about it, Skep. The key message of monotheistic dualism is that Evil is All Your Fault, and Disobedience Only Makes it Worse!

You can find this message throughout Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam. It's an horrifically oppressive position; you can see even in this forum today how confrontational many monotheists are about irreligion; but it also makes monotheistic dualism the best friend an empire ever had.

Essentially, the message is that everyone in an empire must obey while a theocratically-endorsed emperor goes to War against all Evil, foreign and domestic. Whatever claims to virtue, peace and love the religion might make, the doctrine of Obey or Suffer Justly justifies pretty much every conceivable militant oppression from persecution to colonialism and genocide of anyone dissenting from doctrine. Most atheists find it risible that Christianity declares such oppressive messages Good News.

But to justify that position, you need the doctrine of a morally-ordered world in which all human suffering is human-created. Without it, the mandate of Obey or Suffer Justly collapses. And from the early Church through the Enlightenment, pretty much every Christian believed in a morally-ordered universe, with human-created suffering, justly warranted.

But nineteenth century science dismantled the idea that all human suffering is man-made; in the twentieth century, the horrors of multiple world wars demolished the belief that blind imperial obedience was virtue, while twentieth-century science rent the idea of a morally-ordered universe.

Essentially, it no longer matters how much the faithful try to reinterpret the doctrine, there's nowhere in modern knowledge for monotheistic dualism to survive. I think this realisation has essentially split Christianity into reactionary antiscience fundamentalism (e.g. Evangelicals, Black Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses), and post-dual moral philosophy with community-building rituals (everyone else.)

What I find interesting (or disturbing) is the massive disconnect between your average believer and most Christian scholars.
It's pretty clear from reading Christian Biblical scholars that in consensus, they don't believe the Bible is authentic, or terribly accurate. Essentially, the same historiological methods of correlation and analysis used successfully on secular documents show the Bible to be plagiarised, written pseudepigraphically and heavily redacted, while systematic archaeological exploration shows the ancient stories to be myths. This was first suspected in the mid 19th century, but now Biblical scholars aren't even looking for refuting evidence -- they've given up trying to find Abraham's bones, or the remains of Noah's Ark and declared there's nothing there to find.

Any clergy taking Biblical scholarship seriously (i.e. those attending reputable seminaries) must know this, however there's no incentive for them to tell their parishioners. Attendance is employment, and admitting Biblical inauthenticity and inaccuracy won't add a single pair of buttocks to their pews, so they largely don't. And popular newer Christian movements like the Charismatics and Evangelicals don't go in for serious Biblical scholarship anyway, so their clergy are either bald-faced liars, or as ignorant as their laiety.

I am interested in specific failures of the elements you listed above. Some of them are obvious, but others are not so clear to me. I would guess I'm not the only one. :-)
Okay, so we can refute the doctrine piecewise, and in another post I'll work through that. But doctrines can change and perhaps the more important point is that no shift in doctrine and no new scientific discovery can repair the essential failings in monotheistic dualism. Essentially, I think that approach to religious faith is now beyond hope of ever having a sound intellectual basis, or regrowing membership from an educated population. So I'd like to get to that too.