Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Viking]

In my opinion there are different concepts embraced by the term "truth".

I believe for example that the Golden Rule is a "true" concept. It is not however "true" in the same way as a robust scientific theory not yet disproven.

Similarly I am of the opinion that many religions have elements to them that are "true", strictly in the former sense. I do not believe that any one of them is "true' in the latter sense.

I'll agree with you that we need more words to define the discrete kinds of truth.

[Malthus]

But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.

Well IMO religion has nothing useful to say about anything outside of human existance and our relationship to the outside world and each other.

It won't tell you about the movement of the stars nor why birds migrate south for the winter.

Well, the bible does say something about the movement of the stars. It claims the stars are fixed in the firmament. That is just plain wrong.

As for human existence and the relationship to the outside world. If you are going to use Religion to help you understand this then I expect you deal with the truth of the religion first. Until you do that then you don't pass the laugh test.

Don't have anal sex! Why? God sez so! WTF?

It is possible to use intuition and comparative knowledge from other sources to weed out the positive commandments from religion that are "true" in the sense I described ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") from those that are "false" ("thou shalt not ... eat lobster").

Even the most Orthodox Jew does not uncritically accept every commandment from the OT.

[Berkut]

I thought you said Religion has reason? Defend that proposition. Use reason to deal with my contention that you can't trust anything in the bible because it might just be symbolic.

I find your contention stupid because I challenge it's assumption that you can't trust something that is symbolic.   You can (and perhaps should) trust things that are symbolic.

Whether or not Noah actually built an ark has little to do with the message of redemption of that story.

The way I understand the Noah Story is that God promises never to murder almost all the humans again. I think the truth of the flood story is pretty much fundamental the morale of the story. If god didn't murder almost all humans then the promis not to do so again makes no sense.

I am kind of amazed at people ability to find a positive message in a story like Noah and the ark.

Redemption? Are you kidding me?

[Viking]

You can use it or not, the choice is up to you.

But it is foolish to reject it because it's not "true" when it appears clear that it was never written in the first place as a piece of literal history.  It's like picking up a novel and being frustrated that it isn't a textbook.

No, it's like picking up a book about moral and philosophical truth and the nature of the cosmos and it's creator and being frustrated that you don't know which bits are factual and which bits are allegorical.

[Viking]

It is possible to use intuition and comparative knowledge from other sources to weed out the positive commandments from religion that are "true" in the sense I described ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") from those that are "false" ("thou shalt not ... eat lobster").

Even the most Orthodox Jew does not uncritically accept every commandment from the OT.

Well both Rabbi Hillel og Babylon and Konfucius got the golden rule about 500 years before Christ. Now, since you seem to expect me to find it obvious which are "true" or "false" how is that different from me making my own mind up without the help of the bible or any other book? Why do I need the bible? Or God?

[Barrister]

No, generally we have excellent explanations of the exact metabolic pathway that certain drugs effect.

No, we know exactly what happens in a nuclear bomb.

Evolution, due to the very long-time scale, is not able to be "proven" like some other areas of science, and thus is stuck with the label of "theory".  But just because some areas are not able to be conclusively tested doesn't mean that all of science is that way.

I have a science degree.  Mine is in geology.  Certain areas of geology are proven, because they can be replicated in a lab.  Other areas are not, given the enormous time scales involved.

All of these are Theory. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory and then come back.

Done.  Now you read this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Show me the law of evolution, the law of nuclear fission and the law of phisiology or any scientific law within geology then I'll stop laughing.

Obviously I'm not going to show you the "law of evolution".  But I think I made my point: some things in science can in fact be proven, others cannot.  It was only a minor quibble to someone who claimed "science can never be proven, only disproven".

[Malthus]

I thought you said Religion has reason? Defend that proposition. Use reason to deal with my contention that you can't trust anything in the bible because it might just be symbolic.

I find your contention stupid because I challenge it's assumption that you can't trust something that is symbolic.   You can (and perhaps should) trust things that are symbolic.

Whether or not Noah actually built an ark has little to do with the message of redemption of that story.

The way I understand the Noah Story is that God promises never to murder almost all the humans again. I think the truth of the flood story is pretty much fundamental the morale of the story. If god didn't murder almost all humans then the promis not to do so again makes no sense.

A lot of the mythology in the OT is a way of making sense current conditions. The flood story probably pre-dates Judaism, but its "message" probably has more to do with the notion that everyone is related to a single ancestor. This message has been used both negatively and positively - negatively, in that some have based racism on the fact that the descendants of one of Noah's sons was cursed; positively, in that Jews in particular base the fact that all humans are equal (and can be equally "righteous" (see: 'Noahide').     

[Berkut]

No, generally we have excellent explanations of the exact metabolic pathway that certain drugs effect.

No, we know exactly what happens in a nuclear bomb.

Evolution, due to the very long-time scale, is not able to be "proven" like some other areas of science, and thus is stuck with the label of "theory".  But just because some areas are not able to be conclusively tested doesn't mean that all of science is that way.

I have a science degree.  Mine is in geology.  Certain areas of geology are proven, because they can be replicated in a lab.  Other areas are not, given the enormous time scales involved.

All of these are Theory. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory and then come back.

Done.  Now you read this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Show me the law of evolution, the law of nuclear fission and the law of phisiology or any scientific law within geology then I'll stop laughing.

Obviously I'm not going to show you the "law of evolution".  But I think I made my point: some things in science can in fact be proven, others cannot.  It was only a minor quibble to someone who claimed "science can never be proven, only disproven".

I take it you didn't actually read the Wiki article you cited, did you?

Like this part:

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain scientific laws.[2] Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law.

Not only is a Scientific Law in the manner you are speking of NOT a "proven theory", it isn't a "proven" anything, since in fact they can, and almost always do, turn out to be wrong and incomplete anyway!

Sorry, my contention stands - scientific theory can never be proven, only disproven.

[Viking]

Obviously I'm not going to show you the "law of evolution".  But I think I made my point: some things in science can in fact be proven, others cannot.  It was only a minor quibble to someone who claimed "science can never be proven, only disproven".

From your wikilink

The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain scientific laws.[2] Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law.

Ultimately Proof only exists in mathematics.

[Valmy]

Well, the bible does say something about the movement of the stars. It claims the stars are fixed in the firmament. That is just plain wrong.

As for human existence and the relationship to the outside world. If you are going to use Religion to help you understand this then I expect you deal with the truth of the religion first. Until you do that then you don't pass the laugh test.

Don't have anal sex! Why? God sez so! WTF?

I said something useful to say.  I didn't say they had nothing to say, but usually the things they do have to say are only in service to their other objective and are not really about the birds flying or the stars moving.

No where does God say anything about anal sex btw.  Many rather fundy Christians use this as a way to not have sex before marriage.

In my opinion the part of Leviticus supposedly condemning male same sex relations actually is talking about the temple prostitutes that used to be common...but I could be wrong but it doesn't really bother me since what God tells you what to do is not really the point of Leviticus IMO.  But I don't want to get too far into this.

[The Minsky Moment]

The hypothesis that Muhammad didn't exist seems very unlikely: too many known historical personages claim to have known and met him - it would have to be one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated.  the fact that there is material related to Muhammad that also contains Christian-style iconography is in no way suggestive of Muhmammad's non-existence; it is not unusual for a new monotheistic movement that claimed descent in part from the christian tradition to appropriate their iconography or symbols.  Note also that even if Muhammad was a title and not a proper name; that is hardly evidence that the individual in question did not exist.

[Berkut]

Obviously I'm not going to show you the "law of evolution".  But I think I made my point: some things in science can in fact be proven, others cannot.  It was only a minor quibble to someone who claimed "science can never be proven, only disproven".

From your wikilink

The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain scientific laws.[2] Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law.

Ultimately Proof only exists in mathematics.

The word "proof" is rather  poorly defined when it comes to these kinds of discussions.

[Malthus]

It is possible to use intuition and comparative knowledge from other sources to weed out the positive commandments from religion that are "true" in the sense I described ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") from those that are "false" ("thou shalt not ... eat lobster").

Even the most Orthodox Jew does not uncritically accept every commandment from the OT.

Well both Rabbi Hillel og Babylon and Konfucius got the golden rule about 500 years before Christ. Now, since you seem to expect me to find it obvious which are "true" or "false" how is that different from me making my own mind up without the help of the bible or any other book? Why do I need the bible? Or God?

I certainly do not expect you or anyone to find any truth "obvious". Nor do I think that the Bible is necessary for finding truth.

What is necessary is to have as many inputs as posible - by all means read the Bible, read the Analects, read philosophers both modern and ancient. Then make up you own mind.

What one should not do, is assume that the ancients were all morons and their works all nonsense, and that we know so much better about the human condition  that we can afford to ignore them. That doesn't mean that one's work is not cut out for one, seperating the useful from the useless in their writings. 

[Valmy]

Why do I need the bible? Or God?

You don't.  You can generally get the same sorts of things out of most religions.  They all sorta point towards similar idea and that is not coincidental.

You don't need the Bible or the idea of God but they can be useful spiritually.

[Pat]

Insert Quote
The hypothesis that Muhammad didn't exist seems very unlikely: too many known historical personages claim to have known and met him - it would have to be one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated.  the fact that there is material related to Muhammad that also contains Christian-style iconography is in no way suggestive of Muhmammad's non-existence; it is not unusual for a new monotheistic movement that claimed descent in part from the christian tradition to appropriate their iconography or symbols.  Note also that even if Muhammad was a title and not a proper name; that is hardly evidence that the individual in question did not exist.

Which historial personages claim to have known and met him?