Talk:Skeptic's Annotated Bible

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon bible.svg

This Bible related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


More on the Quran and BOM[edit]

This article needs more coverage of the SABOM and SAQ(or SAK, if you like to spell Quran Koran). Colbert|FanSome people do stuff

Then do it. ТyTalk. 04:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "The" a part of the name?[edit]

And should it be included in the page title? The website seems to use both forms. Examples of other articles where the article "the" is included in the title: The Sun, The Guardian, The Devil's Dictionary.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think so, for both counts. Never seen it be "Skeptic's Annotated Bible". FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 17:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Skeptic's Annotated Bible answered (or so it thinks)[edit]

Putting this for my own convenience and commentary, but might serve something for anyone, if anyone is interested.

This is a site that claims to have responded to everything about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. I don't accept its arguments. It has howlers like "science doesn't know everything" and "were you there" and even "homosexuality is a choice" crap. There are some arguments "well no, check future references" but a good literary work shouldn't have to force readers to jump all over the place to "correct" contradictions. I've chosen some great nuggets from this thing.

Lastly I want to protest against the phrase “events that are known to science.” Because where does truth come from? Is that from things told by scientists? In that case we have been deceived many times in the past as the facts turned out to be different. But also, were scientists present when these events unfolded? They were not. Can they repeat them in a laboratory? They can not. As even many young earth creationists believe that the rest of the universe is much older, one could say that we could use that as some constraint on our hypothesis. But have we ever seen a star form? We have not. Have we ever seen planets form? We have not. Does our current solar system conform to theories that have been invented on how solar systems come to pass? It does not. Every feature of our solar system is thought to have come to pass by an act of God, or as scientists like to say: some comet hit something and that's why things are the way they are. That's not a scientific explanation. For a detailed and sometimes hilarious account on ‘scientific explanations of the original of our universe’ see Our Created Solar System.

This one is basically pseudo-intellecutal hand-waving "science was wrong before" and nothing-intellectual "were you there?". And "Have we ever seen a star form"? Yeah, the Chinese did at 1054 up to today. This is a classic argument by an apologetic who grossly misunderstands the science and uses that ignorance as a means to build on the argument. This person doesn't even clearly express how he thinks the scientists think the solar system formed. Does he think a comet hit something and that's how the solar system formed"?

For those interested in physics: it's interesting to see that the first created things are water and light. The chemical formula for water is H2O. Meaning that it consists of two elements, H, hydrogen, and O, oxygen. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. It's the most simple one as well, consisting of two particles with mass: a proton and an electron. So at the beginning of creation we see Scripture mentioning the most basic elements. But we also see a far more complex element O: this indicates that atoms were not formed after millions of years by naturalistic processes, but immediately by God.

The Bible never mentions these elements as we call them, as the Bible is not a shortcut to scientific knowledge. But the Bible does not contradict science, and when science contradicts the Bible, science itself will prove such science to be wrong, although we might have to wait some years for that to happen.

That conclusion lies in the assumption that the scripture is correct: water has been indeed created at the same time as hydrogen. No it hasn't. And wouldn't this argument with knowledge of chemistry be against "Goddidit"? How can oxygen exist without Helium, Lithium, Berrylium, Boron, Carbon, and Nitrogen existing beforehand? Science (which is technically a process) has the answer: nuclear fusion of hydrogen in stars leads to heavier elements, and explosions can lead to even heavier elements, which includes those in-between. Scripture's answer is God Ex Machina.

Oh, and if science contradicts the Bible, this person just assumes science will eventually be wrong instead of questioning, you know, the Bible.

On the light of the moon: obviously the author of the SAB hasn't spend much time outside at night at full moon.

This is only a technicality and probably pointing out that writers of the Bible don't realize that the moon only reflects sunlight, no need for condescension here, which contradicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Person didn't respond to SAB's "And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky?" which I think is a very good point, and that's not bringing up when the moon isn't here at all during some nights.

On being fruitful, it is becoming clear that those nations which are not fruitful whither away. But the meaning of fruitful here is not to be as fruitful as one possibly can with disregard for all other concerns, such as health, ability to raise up children, and such. On the other hand, it appears that the more people there are, the more life has improved, and that considerably. On birth control itself, assuming married couples, anything that is abortive is clearly sinful. Opinion differ on other methods. There are of course natural and not so natural methods. Is it healthy for females to take in chemicals, hormones, for a considerable portion of their lives? We don't really know yet, and those who take these are part of a scientific experiment on a grand scale. More natural methods seem a wiser choice for those who think it is not contrary to the will of God to avoid becoming pregnant.

"Anything that is abortive is clearly sinful" but the Bible also advocates punishing the unborn (for things their ancestors have done) and even implying killing in the unborn such as Genesis 20:18 where wombs are closed (unless absolutely no women were pregnant at the time which I doubt).

The author of the SAB claims that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Depending on what decade you would have lived in, it would have varied from millions to billions to infinity. What will science assure us is the age of the universe in the next hundred years?

I'd imagine it'll still be older than whatever young-earth creationists come up. But scientists have a pretty clear picture of how old the universe is. I'm open for revising the information, but I doubt it'll change drastically.

But the author of the SAB makes a mistake in believing that creationist scientists do believe the universe to be 6,000 years old. Many young earth creationist scientists believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, but the universe to be billions of years old. On the fourth day of creation, when God created the stars, the space around the earth was expanded, creating a white hole effect, which would cause time beyond the earth to run much faster, while not effecting[sic] time on earth. This solves the distant star light problem and does not violate known laws of physics. This theory is testable. For example all stars and galaxies move away from the earth. Secular scientists have to believe we are not special and affirm this holds for every point in the universe: i.e. wherever you are, every point in space would be receding from you. This is not true for this creationist model.

Starlight problem and White hole cosmology.

There were indeed not even ten in Sodom. Children are not eligible, because they are the responsibility of their parents, i.e. just like parents today can make bad choices.

There might have been good children, so perhaps the author of the SAB wants to have a solution where the children are saved, separate from their parents. First, children are never separated from their parents in the Bible. But secondly, how would that have worked? All these toddlers, saved but separate from their parents? And thirdly, although these innocent children might have been in the punishment of their parents, this judgement isn't the final one. The final judgement is before the throne of God and there God will judge them according to their works, if they have been bad or good, and not according to what their parents had done.

This comment is nasty. Children are not extensions of their parents as this comment implies. They are individual human beings, who should be treated as their own and not be judged by their parents' actions. Children are not their parent's objects.

And this comment basically says it's fine innocent children die because they'll be judged in Heaven anyway.

Referring to Genesis 19:8.

I'm not really sure if there is a good response when thugs want to rape your guests. Giving up your guests or your daughters seems both repugnant. But faced with impossible choices, the one thing Lot should have done is praying to God. From this text it does not appear he did.

This person pretends that there are only two choices, offer guests or your own daughters. I'm sure there are many, many other choices such as defending your place to the teeth or offering money or making threats or anything that doesn't involve selling your daughters to prostitution unless it's complete last resort. But if you're righteous, you probably would've done other things. The person suggests praying for God, but God is supposed to be all powerful and all-knowing. Clearly, he isn't here and he shouldn't need to be prayed to if he's supposed to be good and solve problems.

The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of their sins, plural. They did not stop at a single sin. Also note that this story of attempted homosexual rape only comes after God had already decided to destroy the city because of its sins, see chapter 18:20. Their behaviour just confirmed how wicked they were. One remark on the discussion: it claims the number of homosexual man is about 5%. But I question how much of homosexuality is genetics. It's mostly learnt behaviour I would say. Also it is quite easy for men to commit homosexual acts, even when not being a "genetic" homosexual.

Referring to how all inhabitants are smited. This assumes everyone and their ancestors are "broken beyond repair". This means the children and babies and the people who aren't involved in this attempted raping are tarnished. To be honest, it sounds like a weak excuse and justifying killing those who have ultimately nothing to do with this. We call this "guilt by association" And there is a statement that homosexuality is "learnt behavior" and that it's "quite easy for men to commit homosexual acts". GTFO. Just like how heterosexual behavior is "learnt" too, I'm sure and it sure why homosexuality and even complete sex change occurs in nature.

Lot's wife looked back, because she desired what was going to be destroyed. And as Sodom and Gomorrah, so will this world be judged and destroyed. She therefore serves as a warning for those who look back and desire that which will not last.

Sure, she deserved it because she somehow likes Sodom rather than other reasons such as curiosity or making sure the city is destroyed or maybe an annoying bug was flying in her face and she can't swat it away so she turned around. I don't see this "she desired Sodom" implied anywhere in the Bible. But sure, she deserves it. And if she isn't "good" like Lot's family, wouldn't God know about this and tell Lot to leave her behind?

I'm really unsure why the author of the SAB expects the Bible to criticise something so gross. Does he criticise every newspaper if they report something abhorrent and omit a paragraph of disapproval? Is it really necessary to have a verse of disapproval in a case like this, which is so clearly disprovable that there is no need to say it?

The Bible gives this historical account. If one assumes this account is somehow akin to advice in morals, I suggest to such persons not to read newspapers.

This is supposed to be God's word and Lot is supposed to be a "good guy". And this is a statement against the fundamentalists who insist the Bible should be a guide for family standards (like being against incest, homosexuality, and drunk rape). Given that Lot is supposed to be good and that the Bible is fine describing these acts by this "good" person, this passage is disgusting and no one should defend this crap. Furthermore, these fundamentalists want to "protect" children by advocating censoring innocent children books like And Tango Makes ThreeWikipedia's W.svg just because it is about homosexuality but teach their kids with the guidance of something that contains, and I daresay even promotes, much more repugnant sex acts.

Sure, this is now "historical" account. It's fun changing standards if they're otherwise inconvenient to your "Bible teaches morality and family values" stance. If it is "historical", why isn't Lot punished? Why is this even described in the Bible? If this is supposed to be the word of God, why would God put this there especially if he expects us to root for Lot, who I remind you is supposed to be the good guy?

I'd go on, but this is a sampling of it and I guess I've done more than enough to provide a good picture of that this person thinks or the lengths this person goes to excuse the Bible. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)