Talking Snakes Demonstrates Atheist Disbelief in Evolution (children, preaching, origin)

[zzzSnorlax]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't have responded.

The response is not for your benefit. Never said I did not care what other people think and say. Just you.

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Looks like you skipped right to step 3. Typical. My OP is quite plain. If you believe in evolution then you have to accept the possibility of animals talking like humans. Plain and simple.

Except they haven't evolved that way. Really not sure why you see this as a "gotcha".

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

It's pretty revealing that in all my internet travels and despite the individuality of every human being, I encounter common negative language from atheists. They don't just simply not believe in God. They go on the assault, mainly online where there are no consequences. They don't just politely offer counter arguments. Their replies are seasoned with similar rherotic. God is a sky fairy. The Bible is a book of fairy tales. Talking snakes are magical. I hear that a lot, and you know, when I dig past that rhetoric and break it down to the bare bone, I see that even atheists don't truly believe in evolution.


Now the Bible does record an account of a talking snake. We know that snakes don't talk. It's a fantastical notion. It's magic. Fantasy. Fiction, right? But if you believe in evolution 100% all the way, how can you really make this claim? Specifically, I'm talking about the belief that human beings are nothing more than just another species of animal descended from a primate ancestor. Yet we are the ONLY species that talk. We make speech, language, not sounds. Not grunts. Language is essential to our existence. Yet for some reason, there has never been another evolutionary line that has produced other animals with all the mechanisms for human speech like vocal cords, lips, tongue, palette...Even chimps at best can only communicate with sign language. If I bring this point up to the atheists, they scramble to find examples of animals that have used speech or language in some crude primitive form. They will point out how animals like parrots can talk like us. (which completely ignores the fact that parrots have much smaller brains than humans) .

Well ok, if you are going to take the stance that other animals can certainly develop the ability to talk like humans then why is the notion of a talking snake or donkey thousands of years ago seen as magical? Honestly, the notion of ANY animal species having a human conversation with us seems fantastical. Why? Because we are NOT animals. When you tell me that it is magical and therefore impossible, you are showing a believe that humans are uniquely designed and humans and ONLY humans will ever be about to talk like we do. Disagree? Then you have to admit that the notion that animals could have talked at one time is in the realm of possibility.

Hey, Jeff...

You could have saved yourself all that keyboarding by first completing the first step in your quest:

Provide evidence for a talking snake. I'm at a loss as to why that escaped your notice.

First things first, after all.

[zzzSnorlax]

I disagree with the very idea that I should have to make nice with this level of unreasoning incredulity and ignorance. It should be ridiculed because it is ridiculous. If you don't want to be ridiculed then get some less ridiculous ideas.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by skepticratic

...I know you said believing that the Bible has errors is a dangerous path for Christians. I however don't think viewing something as allegorical is the same thing as seeing it as being erred. Within historical context, it's not uncommon for religious texts, from pretty much all faiths if not absolutely all faiths, to express stories that reference very specific cultural traditions and make use of more artistic expressions, like poetry, to create the text. This means that allegory or exaggeration or simply a cultural practice not actually tied to any deity may be present. However, I don't think seeing it like that is akin to feeling it is less significant or, to use a term you may prefer, less divinely inspired.

Well said. I liken this to Jesus supposedly teaching by way of parable. The very basic elements are immaterial. It doesn't matter that they are not real, actual events that took place. The point is the message they convey.

To me, viewing the Bible literally robs it of its depth. It would be like someone who was listening to Jesus teaching in parables doing this:

JESUS: "Once there was a man, who--"
RANDOM PERSON IN THE CROWD: "What was the man's name?"
JESUS: "Well, that doesn't really matter."
RANDOM PERSON: "You don't know the man's name?"
JESUS: "Okay then, we will call him Jim."
RANDOM PERSON: "Well, was that his real name or are you just making this up?"
JESUS: "Look, the man's name isn't the point, it could be anyone. The man represents humanity. There was once a man named Jim who--"
RANDOM PERSON: "Was Jim from around here? What did he do for a living?"
JESUS (trying not to become frustrated): "Can I just tell this story, please?"

To me, the Bible has a lot of beauty and wisdom in it. It is profound when read as poetry, allegory, etc. Reading it just as a simple history textbook is not only ludicrously untenable, it cheapens it entirely. It's missing the point: "Okay, then Rehoboam begat Elthuselmet...hmm...wow, says here Rehoboam lived to be 700 years old and was a master of the dovetail joint. Need to make a note of that..."

Originally Posted by skepticratic

Terms like sky fairy may not be used to offend or belittle your view. Many atheists use these terms to put their view into clear context. It may be offensive to you, but what they are effectively saying is that the existence of God is as ridiculous to them as the existence of fairies.

I agree, with the exception that I do not view the belief in a god or gods as ridiculous. I can understand that view, but I also sincerely understand why a person would look at the diversity of life in this world, the wonders of the universe, the mysteries of reality and existence and deduce from it that it must have been created, therefore, there would be a creator. I honestly understand that.

But I do think it is impossible, or baseless and groundless, to say "Well, I believe in a creator. It must be that Yahweh--patron deity of some sects of ancient Hebrews--is real and all other gods are just made up, and the Bible has the truth and all other scriptures are false." There is really no basis for that claim. There is absolutely no logical or reality-based reason to say "The God of Abraham is real, but Odin, Vishnu, Zeus and Astarte are false and just made up."

In other words, the scriptures of every faith, to my mind, are interesting and contain some truth, beauty and wisdom. No one of them in particular has cornered the market on that. To ignore or reject others based on blind adherence to one is unfortunate.

Originally Posted by Petunia 100

The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof.

Too few people understand this any more, or realize it. If I kill someone and during my trial I make the claim that I heard voices compelling me to commit murder and had no control over my actions, it is on ME (and my attorney) to prove this, or prove I was otherwise not responsible for my actions by reason of insanity or whatever.

If I claim I was abducted by aliens, it is not the burden of anyone else to prove this did not happen, it is on ME to prove it did.

If I assert there is a god and this god approves of this, disapproves of that, etc., etc. it is not the responsibility of anyone else to prove this isn't true. It is on the person making the claim. Simple and down to earth. This is the way it works.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

The entire point of the OP was to highlight inconsistencies within belief of evolution. You have no right to judge my attitude when you are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing. That's quite hypocritical.

I wouldn't say there are "inconsistencies" in evolutionary theory. Seems more accurate to say there are some gaps in the theory of evolution (more of which narrow or close all the time) and there have been modifications to it as new knowledge comes to light and more discoveries are made which, unironically, seem to always reinforce the fact that evolution actually occurs, even if some aspects of the theory are changed to match new discoveries. This is essentially how science works. These modifications don't call into question theories themselves, or science in general. It's just that science cannot ignore new data and sometimes the acquisition of new data, or new methods of observation and measurement, new testing, etc. can cause a theory to "right" itself.

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

The entire point of the OP was to highlight inconsistencies within belief of evolution. You have no right to judge my attitude when you are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing. That's quite hypocritical.

What inconsistencies have you highlighted? Try as I might, I just cannot see how "talking snakes demonstrates atheist disbelief in evolution". There are no talking snakes. How do they demonstrate something? It makes no sense.

As far as me being hypocritical, I do not claim to have devoted my life to following Jesus. It is true that I do not embody what Jesus taught. I do not sell all that I have to give to the poor, I do not love my enemies, and I do not gladly turn the other cheek when I encounter people who treat me poorly. Those are the things Jesus taught. I have yet to catch you at following what Jesus taught, even though you claim to have devoted your life to following Him.

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax

I disagree with the very idea that I should have to make nice with this level of unreasoning incredulity and ignorance. It should be ridiculed because it is ridiculous. If you don't want to be ridiculed then get some less ridiculous ideas.

If you need to resort to mockery to make a point then that doesn't say much about your character or level of intellect. But thank you for living up to my negative perceptions of atheists. Good job.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ah well, Jeff, to not respond at all just looks like one has no reply or has slunk off abashed. One HAS to make some come-back. But, if you feel that posts not worth a response ought not to be responded to and you also feel that you are overwhelmed, how about just ignoring the rude posts and respning to the ones cooly and politely refuting your arguments?

We really would appreciate some response of that kind.

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by Griffis

JESUS: "Once there was a man, who--"
RANDOM PERSON IN THE CROWD: "What was the man's name?"
JESUS: "Well, that doesn't really matter."
RANDOM PERSON: "You don't know the man's name?"
JESUS: "Okay then, we will call him Jim."
RANDOM PERSON: "Well, was that his real name or are you just making this up?"
JESUS: "Look, the man's name isn't the point, it could be anyone. The man represents humanity. There was once a man named Jim who--"
RANDOM PERSON: "Was Jim from around here? What did he do for a living?"
JESUS (trying not to become frustrated): "Can I just tell this story, please?"

ETA: The above position on "choosing one" POV isn't necessarily directed toward the poster I'm quoting, but I felt it was relevant to what I wanted to say regarding the (very fun and really quite point-making) quote above.

Okay, on with the show.

***

OMG, this ^ (the quoted) feels so very Monty Python to me.

With that said...

I think we all realize that if the Bible WERE taken as JUST STORIES, as just parables or cautionary tales or life suggestions, then that would be TOTALLY FINE.

But Bible believers DO NOT take the Bible as just a collection of stories. Even when certain tales are pretty much universally (except for fundies) accepted as allegories, the main thrust of Christianity isn't that it's a lot of stories that make a general point, it's that Christianity is the absolute truth for every single person on the entire planet and the alternative to it is hell and EVERYONE must believe it or not be saved, ergo, it is overall believed as truth...not as a nice, kindly collection of tales. And it is, further, used to try to change laws, try to change what children are taught, try to change what we are "allowed" to do with our bodies. Not because of the nice stories but because CHRISTIANITY IS THE LITERAL TRUTH FOR EVERY PERSON ON THE GLOBE ZOMG THIS IS AN EMERGENCY AND WE ALL MUST MUST MUST DO WHAT 'OUR' GOD WANTS.

The above quoted exchange, which was funny and awesome and made a point (and what you wrote after, but I snipped for brevity) are nice thoughts but they are very very much a backpedal from the Christian stance which is that Christianity is literally required for every single person, which becomes problematic...so just backtracking with "oh, but they're just nice stories" doesn't cut it because in the next 10 minutes guaranteed some fundie or other or even just some sincere Christian will swing things around to "this is how every single person should, no, MUST be."

So that's the problem.

Want to believe it's all just nice stories? Great. That will change everything. Everything. In fact, that would make the U.S. a whole lot nicer a place to be. But then take that stance and keep it. We can't be going back and forth between "they're just nice stories...you're missing the point" and "X and Y are immoral BASED ON THE BIBLE, hence, let's all badger Washington for a few decades relentlessly to constantly try to get the law changed on it so everyone has to follow what WE think is moral."

As my mother was wont to say: Is it is or is it ain't? Make up our minds here. Pick one stance.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by JerZ

OMG, this feels so very Monty Python to me.

Ha...well, I'm a fan, and it is entirely possible I subconsciously plagiarized this. Wasn't intentional, but since you mentioned Monty Python, there may have been a scene similar to this in Life of Brian or something. Now it seems eerily familiar.