These are the kinds of cites and books I was referring to.

I have no interest in sorting through what I’m guessing is nonsense. If you think it’s valid, it’s your job to find the examples

But let’s be clear: it can’t be revisionist; that’s not a prediction. It can’t be vague - if it’s not precise, it’s no good. You’re just picking the interpretation that works after the fact, and ignoring the ones that don’t

edit: for example, the circle of the earth does not say the earth is spherical, since it could also mean a flat literal circle.

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How are you qualified?

I'm not.

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

I have no interest in sorting through what I’m guessing is nonsense. If you think it’s valid, it’s your job to find the examples

I also think it is nonsense.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

How are you qualified?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

You could try for PhD, what makes you think my hypothesis is wrong?

Or I could read what scholars say about the texts. Cheaper.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What makes you think my hypothesis is wrong?

Can you flesh it out a little? I can then see if aligns with anything I read on the subject.

I think the biggest difference between Science and Religion is that religion has no mechanism for advancement.

Science and religion started seriously diverging about 500 years ago.

If I look only at the last hundred years It is interesting to to compare how many times Science has sought out evidence and revised things to general benefit, with Religion that has remained mired in thoughts form over a thousand years previously.

I do acknowledge that there have been some atempts to update by breakaway religious sects but they are in the definite minority.

21 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

I'm not.

I also think it is nonsense.

Or I could read what scholars say about the texts. Cheaper.

Can you flesh it out a little? I can then see if aligns with anything I read on the subject.

Literally, de facto was your first clue.

I'm suggesting that the bible, as in the written word, was an attempt to freeze the understanding of the elders and we all know how quickly text book's go out of date.

A secondary point, which I think further supports my supposition, is that oral and story telling (metaphoric), transfer of valid information, is far more effective at bridging the generational gap, bc the teacher of the spoken word is capable of filling in the gaps of societal evolution.

You've got google, look it up... 😉

17 hours ago, studiot said:

I think the biggest difference between Science and Religion is that religion has no mechanism for advancement.

I disagree, the biggest difference is the similarity of the people who just want to be right...

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm suggesting that the bible, as in the written word, was an attempt to freeze the understanding of the elders and we all know how quickly text book's go out of date.

No, Mosaic law was directed at the tribe, the ancient Israelites and included rules for farming, land, animals going loose, marriage, adultery, owning and treatment of slaves etc so obviously not stories just for kids.

22 hours ago, studiot said:

I think the biggest difference between Science and Religion is that religion has no mechanism for advancement.

Science and religion started seriously diverging about 500 years ago.

If I look only at the last hundred years It is interesting to to compare how many times Science has sought out evidence and revised things to general benefit, with Religion that has remained mired in thoughts form over a thousand years previously.

I do acknowledge that there have been some atempts to update by breakaway religious sects but they are in the definite minority.

Actually there is a mechanism for development, in those branches of Christianity that claim Apostolic succession of the bishops, e.g. Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian Christianity. These denominations maintain that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the church so that doctrine and tradition can be developed to meet evolving challenges. Now, one might well smile a bit at some of the things that have been done on this basis over the centuries, but it is not the case that all versions of Christianity are sola scriptura and thereby tied forever to just a fixed body of scripture. That was a concept that came into fashion at the Protestant Reformation, as a way of "getting back to basics" and sloughing off the doctrinal accretions that had accumulated.

“The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. The history of our study of our solar system shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources.”

―Carl Sagan

17 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

No, Mosaic law was directed at the tribe, the ancient Israelites and included rules for farming, land, animals going loose, marriage, adultery, owning and treatment of slaves etc so obviously not stories just for kids.

Your cherry picking is not a good argument, I didn't say they were "just for kids", but what about Noah's story?

If you accept they were intended to educate, then you're suggesting they waited for them to grow to full maturity, before they started the education process; that seems unlikely, even for primitive savage idiots...

17 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

“The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. The history of our study of our solar system shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources.”

―Carl Sagan

It work's for some scientists too, for most of us the truth is ugly, unappealing and difficult to understand. We mostly want to be validated, as to our correctness, and we often get angry when asked to justify our beliefs logically, which is why a PhD is difficult to obtain.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Your cherry picking is not a good argument, I didn't say they were "just for kids", but what about Noah's story?

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your cherry picking is not a good argument, I didn't say they were "just for kids", but what about Noah's story?

If you accept they were intended to educate, then you're suggesting they waited for them to grow to full maturity, before they started the education process; that seems unlikely, even for primitive savage idiots...

It work's for some scientists too, for most of us the truth is ugly, unappealing and difficult to understand. We mostly want to be validated, as to our correctness, and we often get angry when asked to justify our beliefs logically, which is why a PhD is difficult to obtain.

Noah is not part of Mosaic law

On 5/30/2025 at 1:45 PM, exchemist said:

Actually there is a mechanism for development, in those branches of Christianity that claim Apostolic succession of the bishops, e.g.

I agree, it is ongoing. Why wouldn’t life at the moment matter?

I was reading “Maverick Scientist” and there is this debate there. It says, “to be a scientist you just have to do science.”

A math problem is a math problem no matter what you believe. I just think anything people are different (physically or beliefs can be manipulated to control you.

I don’t have the source but it said young children would play in kindergarten no matter what race. But as they got older something (the study didn’t know why) changed. I don’t mean to bring up race. But we are believing migrants are costing us money and they don’t have the rights of citizens. I am just using the most current example. Maybe you heard this somewhere.

There are biases on everyone, but science and religion aren’t against each other. It is person against person.

15 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I agree, it is ongoing. Why wouldn’t life at the moment matter?

I was reading “Maverick Scientist” and there is this debate there. It says, “to be a scientist you just have to do science.”

A math problem is a math problem no matter what you believe. I just think anything people are different (physically or beliefs can be manipulated to control you.

I don’t have the source but it said young children would play in kindergarten no matter what race. But as they got older something (the study didn’t know why) changed. I don’t mean to bring up race. But we are believing migrants are costing us money and they don’t have the rights of citizens. I am just using the most current example. Maybe you heard this somewhere.

There are biases on everyone, but science and religion aren’t against each other. It is person against person.

Excellent examples. Thank you

Just a response to the title

To be objective i believe both sides may have failures. See what i opinionate.

There are many people ( ah ok. They call themself with scientist) where we currently do not have a solution for a problem, they say that the relevant case was not a problem (for instance being a queer)

To me such people are not or may be not the exact scientists as they deem themself.

And at the other side, i am afraid it should not be so easy to be a religious person. Such people may/should consider to take themself equal to another person. But this is not a case for every circumstance. ( for instance,imagine such a person; feels quite relief and prefers to remain irresponsible when he/she does the sin while he/she gets quite angry across another person for the same sin that that person does.)

Edited May 31May 31 by ahmet

20 minutes ago, ahmet said:

Just a response to the title

To be objective i believe both sides may have failures. See what i opinionate.

There are many people ( ah ok. They call themself with scientist) where we currently do not have a solution for a problem, they say that the relevant case was not a problem (for instance being a queer)

I really hope that this is a matter of a language/communication problem and not bigotry. Science’s function doesn’t include endorsing the latter

7 hours ago, swansont said:

I really hope that this is a matter of a language/communication problem and not bigotry. Science’s function doesn’t include endorsing the latter

Why bigotry ?

Please accept it, it is reality.

19 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

  23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your cherry picking is not a good argument, I didn't say they were "just for kids", but what about Noah's story?

But it is part of the bible.

Don't forget, my hypothesise includes most other Bible's and thus is mostly immune to cherry picking, esspecially a specific tribe; and given the millenia of time the book covers. IOW no single tribe can write our history or educate us directly, but their wisdom can be inferred and woven into our tribe... 😉

12 hours ago, ahmet said:

Just a response to the title

To be objective i believe both sides may have failures. See what i opinionate.

There are many people ( ah ok. They call themself with scientist) where we currently do not have a solution for a problem, they say that the relevant case was not a problem (for instance being a queer)

To me such people are not or may be not the exact scientists as they deem themself.

And at the other side, i am afraid it should not be so easy to be a religious person. Such people may/should consider to take themself equal to another person. But this is not a case for every circumstance. ( for instance,imagine such a person; feels quite relief and prefers to remain irresponsible when he/she does the sin while he/she gets quite angry across another person for the same sin that that person does.)

Objectively, you're conflating philosophies with people.

Science doesn't care about people, a true (Scotsman) scientist doesn't care what a godophile say's, bc it's irrelevant to one's goal.

Policy has infected the religious philosophy, for much longer, so it's more difficult to understand.

Edited June 1Jun 1 by dimreepr

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Objectively, you're conflating philosophies with people.

Science doesn't care about people, a true (Scotsman) scientist doesn't care what a godophile say's, bc it's irrelevant to one's goal.

Policy has infected the religious philosophy, for much longer, so it's more difficult to understand.

Lets be specific rather than turning the discussion into even rather general stereotypes. 😇 (did you mean or attempt to mean somewhat related to for instance this sentence :" science does not deal with subjects, it deals with objects."

If yes, oh i did not ever know that 🤣😂)

The last sentence worths but not sufficient. Lets elaborate it.

Edited June 1Jun 1 by ahmet

16 hours ago, dimreepr said:

cherry picking is not a good argument, I didn't say they were "just for kids", but what about Noah's story?

Apologies that messed up, the quote function is not playing nice with this device.

Yes the Bible is a lot of different things, history, wisdom, poetry philosophy and moral teaching.

Mosaic law is hardly cherry picking, it is central to the Jewish religion.

What about Noah's story? Not that all of the Bible stories are exclusive to the ancient Israelites but historians are pretty much certain that one is not. It is an ancient mesopotamian myth which pre dates the Bible. I will refer you to the epic of Gilgamesh.

The story was adopted and adapted but the central points are all there.

Anyway for kids? It is certainly a popular one for Sunday school in modern times. I do not see how that story is any different to other stories in the OT. The idea of annihilating every living thing on the planet bar one boatful does not strike me as a bed time story.

37 minutes ago, ahmet said:

Lets elaborate it.

OK, Donald Trump is a rich man's version of Forest Gump

1 minute ago, pinball1970 said:

Apologies that messed up, the quote function is not playing nice with this device.

Yes the Bible is a lot of different things, history, wisdom, poetry philosophy and moral teaching.

Mosaic law is hardly cherry picking, it is central to the Jewish religion.

What about Noah's story? Not that all of the Bible stories are exclusive to the ancient Israelites but historians are pretty much certain that one is not. It is an ancient mesopotamian myth which pre dates the Bible. I will refer you to the epic of Gilgamesh.

The story was adopted and adapted but the central points are all there.

Anyway for kids? It is certainly a popular one for Sunday school in modern times. I do not see how that story is any different to other stories in the OT. The idea of annihilating every living thing on the planet bar one boatful does not strike me as a bed time story.

In modern time's, we use a purple dinosaur... 😉

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In modern time's, we use a purple dinosaur..

Dino on the arc? Yeah I've seen some Creation research and DI propaganda.

Crazy stuff.

15 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Dino on the arc? Yeah I've seen some Creation research and DI propaganda.

Crazy stuff.

Indeed, but it's still not much of an argument... 🙄

43 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but it's still not much of an argument... 🙄

Not my argument, just to clear. I do not think there was an Arc Flood or Noah (or Biblical creation, Adam and Eve, Moses, Exodus...)

20 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Not my argument, just to clear. I do not think there was an Arc Flood or Noah (or Biblical creation, Adam and Eve, Moses, Exodus...)

"The Bible was not put together till the 4th CE and those OT stories were absolutely not meant for children!"

Just to be clear, I'm an atheist and my argument is, how can you know?

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"The Bible was not put together till the 4th CE and those OT stories were absolutely not meant for children!"

Just to be clear, I'm an atheist and my argument is, how can you know?

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

"The Bible was not put together till the 4th CE and those OT stories were absolutely not meant for children!"

Just to be clear, I'm an atheist and my argument is, how can you know?

The stories were meant for the tribe, it tells us in the texts. How do I know it was put together in the fourth century? This is documented and referred to by the church fathers. The NT was written in the first century, Paul's letters in the 50s and the Gospels between 60-95 CE. Revelation for example nearly did not make the final cut.

The translation to English was in the 16th C.

11 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

how can you know?

I will use the historian's description of their discipline.

The job of the historian is to try and establish what happened in the past, it is not the past itself. The historian assigns probabilities to events peoples and places.

So, did Jesus exist? Most likely.

Adam? Not likely.

So knowing for certain is not one of the options.

3 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

The stories were meant for the tribe, it tells us in the texts. How do I know it was put together in the fourth century? This is documented and referred to by the church fathers. The NT was written in the first century, Paul's letters in the 50s and the Gospels between 60-95 CE. Revelation for example nearly did not make the final cut.

The translation to English was in the 16th C.

I will use the historian's description of their discipline.

The job of the historian is to try and establish what happened in the past, it is not the past itself. The historian assigns probabilities to events peoples and places.

So, did Jesus exist? Most likely.

Adam? Not likely.

So knowing for certain is not one of the options.

Indeed, so saying something like 'it's absolutely not meant for children.' is clearly false...

3 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

I will use the historian's description of their discipline.

The job of the historian is to try and establish what happened in the past, it is not the past itself. The historian assigns probabilities to events peoples and places.

History is humanities Achilles heal, we never learn from it; I contend that bibles are attempts to fix the wisdom, they know will be lost, for as long as possible.

I also contend that best way to transpher wisdom between generations, is orally rather than text.

Edited June 3Jun 3 by dimreepr

Jane Austen sums us all up quite succinctly in "Pride and Prejudice"