Why isn't the Bible a primary source?

Technarch
Posts: 127
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Why isn't the Bible a primary source?

When researching, one relies on reliable sources that are peer reviewed, and cites those sources as support.  Christians often do this with the Bible, treating it as a reliable source that has been "peer reviewed" by its authors.  The Bible is viewed as the truth and the guide to reality, thus quoting from it is like a scientist quoting from a scientific journal.  The difference is that the scientific journal can be criticized, reviewed further, and even refuted at some point.  The Bible is not refuted as it requires its followers to maintain the Bible as a source of truth.  If the Bible had plenty of outside sources to support its miracles and events then it would be credible.   Christians see the Bible as truth and treat it as truth, so when someone says "you can't just use the bible as a source" the answer is "but that is my source, because it has the truth."  By believing in it as the truth, and by not allowing any change or refutation to take place, the Bible is always seen as truth whether it is or not.  Saying "stop using the bible as a source and use something else as a source" cannot be done, because Christianity is based on the Bible, not a system of academic peer review.  The Bible fails for its lack of external support, so it relies solely on internal support.  This is the same as any book that claims itself to be true regardless of any journal or review, whether it be pseudoscience, holocaust denial, conspiracy theory, or Scientology.                


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Technarch wrote:

Technarch wrote:
When researching, one relies on reliable sources that are peer reviewed, and cites those sources as support. Christians often do this with the Bible, treating it as a reliable source that has been "peer reviewed" by its authors.

The bible doesn't even hold up to any decent standard of eyewitness accounting or history.

For example, let's look at the 'gospels'

We have 'four works' that are completely anonymous.

So they have no value as testimony.

They are without any references.

So they don't make for good history. They are without any of the standard methods of historcity that were already common for the era (See the Greeks, see Josephus, etc.)

So all you have is 'four works' which may well be one original ("Mark&quotEye-wink two copies ("Luke' and "Matthew&quotEye-wink and a later work that clearly comes from the second century, "John"

So there is no grounds upon which one can claim these are legitimate history, hence the need to provide corroboration.

Furthemore, it is prima facie ridiculous that there wouldn't be confirmation, given the claims in the book of "Mark"

A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus)

Quote:

The Bible is viewed as the truth and the guide to reality, thus quoting from it is like a scientist quoting from a scientific journal.

And of course, just because someone begs the question that the bible is true this does not grant one an epistemic grounds for holding that it is true.

Quote:

The difference is that the scientific journal can be criticized, reviewed further, and even refuted at some point. The Bible is not refuted as it requires its followers to maintain the Bible as a source of truth.

Ergo it cannot be compared to a scientific journal, which is not held to dogmatically: it is open to revision.

Quote:

If the Bible had plenty of outside sources to support its miracles and events then it would be credible. Christians see the Bible as truth and treat it as truth, so when someone says "you can't just use the bible as a source" the answer is "but that is my source, because it has the truth." By believing in it as the truth, and by not allowing any change or refutation to take place, the Bible is always seen as truth whether it is or not. Saying "stop using the bible as a source and use something else as a source" cannot be done, because Christianity is based on the Bible, not a system of academic peer review.

And one must ask "why is this so?" Would the christian accept this ad hoc cop out, from anyone else, concerning any other matter?

Quote:

The Bible fails for its lack of external support, so it relies solely on internal support. This is the same as any book that claims itself to be true regardless of any journal or review, whether it be pseudoscience, holocaust denial, conspiracy theory, or Scientology.

True.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


forgottobrush
Posts: 2
Joined: 2009-11-28
User is offlineOffline
Bible in Hebrew as the most highly peer reviewed doc. in history

 

 

Am I credible? For personal reasons I prefer to withhold my name, which does not allow for checking my credibility easily so I apologize. Trust this post at your own discretion. I am a student at Utah Valley University. I have experience working as a part of four different teams that have received international recognition for their research, I have recently returned to the United States from Europe after interning in my field of study, and I have received offers to present my personal research at multiple national and international conferences.

I have extensively researched the accuracy of various books in the Bible as well as the Bible as a whole, and during the translation of it's various components from Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, to over five hundred different languages, then back to only Latin in 600 A.D., to Anglo-Saxon(early form of English), then back to Latin with Gutenberg's printing press, to German with Luther's movement in 1522, and finally to English with Tyndale in 1526, the Bible lost a great deal of it's meaning and accuracy.  The Bible has been one of the most peer reviewed documents in history, and in its original Hebrew form it has proved the most accurate historical document ever examined. It has been verified by hundreds of completely independent archeological finds and thousands of validated historical documents and recordings. These are big claims and I apologize for my haste in answering this blog, but I hope this post will set those reading it on a more accurate track by giving them more facts to work with. The site below is an incredibly simplified presentation of basic  proofs and logic, but I hope my readers find it helpful as I do not have time to take them through my research and findings personally. You can argue the Bible as a "Scholarly Source" with an English 1010-2020 professor and win, I have personally done it at three different Universities with five different professors. Validated archeological finds in corroboration alone meet the requirements for peer review, regardless countless additional evidences presented by scholars in many additional fields of research.

Quote from http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-is-true-faq.htm (I could not discover the author of this page, but the quality of web design and the fact that it has been translated into five languages gives it some credibility. The information posted on the site regardless of who posted it is valid by my research and the examples and sources used are valid and documented by experts in their respective fields.)

"To prove if the Bible is true, we don't need to look far. Hundreds of books with historical, scientific, and archeological data have supported the Bible's credibility. The studies for these truths are called apologetics.

"Most people today, unfortunately, have not even read the Bible. As a result, many people tend to go along with the increasing delusion that the Bible is full of mistakes and no longer relevant to present times. Their searches have been from a surging atheistic desire to disprove the Bible.

"Instead, thousands of investigative findings have led to confirmation of the exact details stated in the Bible. Historical, archeological, and scientific evidences alike have reinforced proof of Bible truths. Confirmations have been almost innumerable, particularly in this last century (i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls, Red Sea Crossing site, etc).

"Dr. Nelson Glueck, perhaps the utmost modern authority on Israeli archeology, said: "No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

"The Word of God was penned by inspiration from the Creator long before scientists stamped their approval on experimental findings. But mankind tends to look at things from a skeptical or scientific, secular perspective when the facts have been in the Bible all along. A few examples of this include:

  • The Earth is round, not flat as once believed (Isaiah 40:22).
  • Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
  • Field of Gravity (Job 26:7).
  • Biological importance of blood to life (Leviticus 17:11).

"In addition, there are statements consistent with Paleontology. For instance, several books in the Bible refer to dinosaurs. Job 40:15 and 41:1 speak of two such creatures. And there are numerous verses referring to dragons. Yet mistakenly, some have thought dinosaurs and men did not exist at the same time.

"An undisputable proof is the overwhelming 100% accuracy of Biblical prophecy. There are thousands of fulfilled prophecies including about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. For example, one of the many Old Testament Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus can be read in Isaiah 53. It describes the life of Jesus Christ 700 years before it happened! Keep in mind that all of the Holy Bible is God inspired and is His revelation of all truths!" (author not found but findable:see contact info on source website)

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Validated as what exactly??

 

None of the claims of the bible can be verified regardless of the fact the bible has not changed greatly throughout its history.

The allabouttruth quote reads to me to be about anything but the truth. It's a sprawling clutch of unverifiable claims and interpretations.

100 per cent accuracy of biblical prophecy as proof? Surely you must be joking.

Why don't you outline one such prophecy that's not open to conjecture and that we can refer to in documents that are not the bible?

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
As for the alleged discovery

of the site of the red sea crossing - well that's just beautiful...Finally I'm convinced.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Answer me this: if you're

Answer me this: if you're really a serious student who want to become a real scholar, why would you come to a forum full of atheists and simply copy-paste something retarded from a generic apologetics website?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Earth is not a circle (

The Earth is not a circle ( a flat disk), it is a sphere.

The wind does not just blow north and south - that does not remotely describe atmospheric circulation. It also circulates vertically - completely overlooked by that quote.

There is no reference in any way to gravity in Job;

Blood is important - but the life of a creature is not in its blood, it is in the body as a whole system. Otherwise blood transfusions would have rather significant effects which they clearly do not have.

All grossly incomplete as descriptions of anything,  or specifically in error - proof that the Bible is NOT a source of knowledge, thank you, but we already knew it was wrong.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
dinosaurs and humans? you got to be kidding

forgottobrush wrote:
 

://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-is-true-faq.htm (I could not discover the author of this page, but the quality of web design and the fact that it has been translated into five languages gives it some credibility.

Oh, so the quality of web design imparts credibility does it? And translation? Of course, works of fiction are translated too.

forgottobrush wrote:
 

"To prove if the Bible is true, we don't need to look far. Hundreds of books with historical, scientific, and archeological data have supported the Bible's credibility. The studies for these truths are called apologetics.

True, lots of people who are trying to prove the existence of the bible have found "proof". Of course that goes for researches into UFOs, ghosts, monsters and fairies too. Real researchers have found lots of contradictory evidence, not to mention the age of the Earth and that the global flood didn't seem to happen in any other country.

forgottobrush wrote:
 
"Most people today, unfortunately, have not even read the Bible. As a result, many people tend to go along with the increasing delusion that the Bible is full of mistakes and no longer relevant to present times. Their searches have been from a surging atheistic desire to disprove the Bible.

Actually there are lots of former theists here who have read the Bible, in fact some stopped believing because they read the bible. I have read large sections of it and really cannot fathom why anyone would take it seriously.

forgottobrush wrote:
 
"In addition, there are statements consistent with Paleontology. For instance, several books in the Bible refer to dinosaurs. Job 40:15 and 41:1 speak of two such creatures. And there are numerous verses referring to dragons. Yet mistakenly, some have thought dinosaurs and men did not exist at the same time.

Consistent with paleontology yet saying that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time? Dragons? Are you sure that you know what consistent means?

forgottobrush wrote:
 
"An undisputable proof is the overwhelming 100% accuracy of Biblical prophecy. There are thousands of fulfilled prophecies including about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. For example, one of the many Old Testament Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus can be read in Isaiah 53. It describes the life of Jesus Christ 700 years before it happened! Keep in mind that all of the Holy Bible is God inspired and is His revelation of all truths!"

Could it  be that when they wrote the ficticious story of Jesus they had already read the Old Testament and could make the story fit?

Keep in mind that the Bible was written by humans to propegate their religion and that God does not exist!

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Actually I think there is a passage

 

In job that christians insist shows that god was aware of the things like gravity. The assertion is crap but god asks job if he can bring together the cloud of stars which comprise the pleiades or break apart orion. 

Astronomers have confirmed that the stars of the pleiades are expanding away from each other and the orion is gravitationally fixed and this discovery (which incidentally could be applied to just about any 2 visible star clumps)

has allowed creation scientists to claim god knows all about gravity nd the bible is a treatise of pure science.  There's also the bit about sparks flying upwards that I've heard used as proof of gravity as well but which sounds like convection

to me.

Christians neglect to point out that in the course of job's discourse with the lord, god is presenting himself variously as a tornado and a cloud, is chatting with satan and other stupid things are happening, all of which defy basic scientific principle.

From memory job is an old story - older than talmud, possibly babylonian in origin, as many old bible stories seem to be, including at least one account of creation in genesis, and possibly both. 

I'm not sure who the god of the babylonians or assyrians was at the time but I imagine not the god the christians now worship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:From

Atheistextremist wrote:

From memory job is an old story - older than talmud, possibly babylonian in origin, as many old bible stories seem to be, including at least one account of creation in genesis, and possibly both.

EVERYTHING is older than the Talmud.  Well, everything in the Tanakh at least.  The Talmud was started after the Mishnah, and the Mishnah was started after Jesus.  Not that Jesus had anything to do with it, just saying ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Malhalla
Malhalla's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-13
User is offlineOffline
Whatever..

Technarch wrote:
When researching, one relies on reliable sources that are peer reviewed, and cites those sources as support.  Christians often do this with the Bible, treating it as a reliable source that has been "peer reviewed" by its authors.  The Bible is viewed as the truth and the guide to reality, thus quoting from it is like a scientist quoting from a scientific journal.  The difference is that the scientific journal can be criticized, reviewed further, and even refuted at some point.  The Bible is not refuted as it requires its followers to maintain the Bible as a source of truth.  If the Bible had plenty of outside sources to support its miracles and events then it would be credible.   Christians see the Bible as truth and treat it as truth, so when someone says "you can't just use the bible as a source" the answer is "but that is my source, because it has the truth."  By believing in it as the truth, and by not allowing any change or refutation to take place, the Bible is always seen as truth whether it is or not.  Saying "stop using the bible as a source and use something else as a source" cannot be done, because Christianity is based on the Bible, not a system of academic peer review.  The Bible fails for its lack of external support, so it relies solely on internal support.  This is the same as any book that claims itself to be true regardless of any journal or review, whether it be pseudoscience, holocaust denial, conspiracy theory, or Scientology.                
Yeah, but when you read a book about dinosaurs we have the bones to prove it and form our theories from that. You don't have any "bones" with the bible. Just a bunch of bull..

"There is no God higher than truth." -Mahatma Ghandi


Malhalla
Malhalla's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-13
User is offlineOffline
The Book has been changed..

The bible has been changed so many times over the centuries how could anyone use it as truth? The truth is that man has taken out parts throughout the centuries that he deemed inapproprite or wrong for some reason or another.. Entire passages of the bible were taken out because of the so called morals of the men in control throughout history. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now..

  Jesus was based on many gods and deities that came before him.. Some 250 or more that all had the same attributes like healing the sick, helping the blind to see, feeding the hungry, performing miracles etc.. The biggest similarities are that they all were born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, brothers, messengers, etc., and they all died for three days and were resurrected at the exact same dates.. Look at your history and you will see for yourself.. Hell look in the bible and you will see that the similarities between Joseph and Jesus are also astonishing. The bible even contradicts itself.. Religion is a sham and was originally used as a way to map the stars by giving them human names and attributes.. the bible is nothing more. A book of fables based on the zodiac. Jesus said to look for a man carrying a pail of water and he will lead you into the house at the end of the age. That man is Aquarius and happens to be the next sign of the zodiac after Pisces which happens to be the age we are in now and is what all the fish are about. Like all these other gods before him, Jesus in nothing more than the Sun. This is history and it has always been this way. This religion was never meant to be taken literally. If people would just get educated and take the blinders off and see things for what they really are then we could move past all the arguments about fake things and get down to what is real.. Our earth, our sun, our lives..  

"There is no God higher than truth." -Mahatma Ghandi


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Lol

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

From memory job is an old story - older than talmud, possibly babylonian in origin, as many old bible stories seem to be, including at least one account of creation in genesis, and possibly both.

EVERYTHING is older than the Talmud.  Well, everything in the Tanakh at least.  The Talmud was started after the Mishnah, and the Mishnah was started after Jesus.  Not that Jesus had anything to do with it, just saying ...

 

I was going to end that post with: Now FurryCat, correct me if I'm wrong...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


forgottobrush
Posts: 2
Joined: 2009-11-28
User is offlineOffline
Woot!

 

 

Thanks guys, I was not expecting such fast responses. You guys have some really amazing stuff backing your responses too.  I'm looking into a bunch of it now. Which ever one of you mentioned getting back to our Earth, our Sun, and our Lives---I think we are best friends if you can get past the fact that I'm a firm believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings. The whole point of why we are here is to live life to its fullest. Who or what we believe in is trivial if we are not happy.

If your willing to listen to one amazing piece of advise, God said that "men are that they might have joy". That should pretty much sum up what Christianity is all about, but sadly it has a ton of other garbage tagged onto it. If you're willing, I'm really interested in what you guys know. Some of it was stuff I have not run into before and possible truth is worth looking into no matter who was responsible for writing it.

 

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

From memory job is an old story - older than talmud, possibly babylonian in origin, as many old bible stories seem to be, including at least one account of creation in genesis, and possibly both.

EVERYTHING is older than the Talmud.  Well, everything in the Tanakh at least.  The Talmud was started after the Mishnah, and the Mishnah was started after Jesus.  Not that Jesus had anything to do with it, just saying ...

 

I was going to end that post with: Now FurryCat, correct me if I'm wrong...

Eventually everyone does!

The Talmud attributes its authorship to Moses, which would be consistent with Moses' role as the teacher of the Jewish people.  As a story, it's a nice story.  As something that really happened -- not so much.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's a rare business

FurryCatHerder wrote:

As a story, it's a nice story.  As something that really happened -- not so much.

 

talking to a theist (?) who's interpretation of the texts is open to consideration.

I can see why jewish folk get pissed at being lumped with the wild-eyed christian sects.

Judaism. Those romans dragged it down into the catacombs and made themselves a frankenstein.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
Judaism. Those romans dragged it down into the catacombs and made themselves a frankenstein.

If you're talking about romans persecuting christians who then had to hide in catacombs, that is, unsurprisingly and like most of both the NT and the OT, fiction.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I totally agree with you KS

KSMB wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Judaism. Those romans dragged it down into the catacombs and made themselves a frankenstein.

If you're talking about romans persecuting christians who then had to hide in catacombs, that is, unsurprisingly and like most of both the NT and the OT, fiction.

 

I just was making a word picture.

If you think about it, the romans pretty well knocked off half of judaism and a whole bunch of jewish history, all while the diaspora was merrily going on.

They then, figuratively,  got judaism in a headlock, dragged it into a dungeon tied it down and bolted a new head and limbs onto it and created a monster.

With the bits and pieces they stitched into it I was thinking mithra and a bunch of older religions. Interestingly the Vatican City is on the site of rome's largest temple to mithra.

Maybe the romans were so impressed with the fortitude of the people they'd been trying to bust up all those years that they tried to leverage what they saw as

the source of their strength and cohesion. I know this sounds weird but why are the chosen people at the centre of this roman faith?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
forgottobrush wrote:The

forgottobrush wrote:
The Earth is round, not flat as once believed (Isaiah 40:22).

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth..." Isaiah 40:22

People believed that the Earth was a flat disk. This matches the Bible verse, which describes the Earth as a circle. The Earth is roughly a sphere, not a circle.

Quote:
Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course." Ecclesiastes 1:6

This is way too vague to be of any significance. Also, the jet streams on Earth travel west-east, not north-south.

Quote:
Field of Gravity (Job 26:7).

"He spreads out the northern skies, over empty space; he suspends the Earth over northing." Job 26:7

This has nothing to do with gravity. However, it's actually accurate, for the most part. The Bible gets it right once in a while, as it should, just like someone who doesn't understand any of the material on a multiple choice exam can still get some of the answers right. 

Quote:
Biological importance of blood to life (Leviticus 17:11).

"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Leviticus 17:11

People had known that blood was important for thousands of years before the Bible was written. And, "the life of a creature is in the blood," is just incoherent. 

Quote:
For instance, several books in the Bible refer to dinosaurs. Job 40:15 and 41:1 speak of two such creatures.

"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox." Job 40:15

"Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?" Job 41:1

Quote:
And there are numerous verses referring to dragons.

Which don't exist.

Quote:
Yet mistakenly, some have thought dinosaurs and men did not exist at the same time.

That's not a mistake. If you think that humans lived with dinosaurs, then you don't know jack shit about paleontology.

Quote:
"An undisputable proof is the overwhelming 100% accuracy of Biblical prophecy. There are thousands of fulfilled prophecies including about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. For example, one of the many Old Testament Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus can be read in Isaiah 53. It describes the life of Jesus Christ 700 years before it happened! Keep in mind that all of the Holy Bible is God inspired and is His revelation of all truths!" (author not found but findable:see contact info on source website)

You have to show that the prophecies were made before the events, that they were unambiguous and had at least decent probabilities of failure, and you have show that the events actually occurred. I've never even seen one impressive, fulfilled prophecy.  

Now, my turn.

In Genesis, God creates light before the stars and sun, which is nonsensical since the light we see comes from the sun. He also separates day from night, and has "evening" and "morning" before the existence of the sun, which is also nonsensical, since day and night is caused by the rotation of the Earth, exposing different sides of it to sunlight. Genesis calls the moon a "lesser light," but the moon does not produce light. It reflects the light of the sun. God makes all the birds before any land animals, which is the wrong order. All animals were supposedly originally herbivores. However, when we study their characteristics, we can clearly observe that carnivores are better equipped to be carnivores, etc. , which indicates that either the Bible is wrong or that God had planned for the fall to happen. God cursed the snake by taking away its legs, but this is stupid, since a snake with legs would have a much lower chance of surviving than a snake without legs. Snakes don't have legs because they evolved that way; they've adapted. The flood is impossible for at least dozens of reasons. God scattered people across the Earth for attempting to erect the tower of Babel because he was scared. Humans can't live to 900 years old; they never have. The genealogies don't make sense. The first humans would've had to engage in incest. The entire concept of the fall doesn't make sense because Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong.

Want me to go on?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Parallel
Parallel's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2009-10-26
User is offlineOffline
I just skimmed this page and

I just skimmed this page and suddenly I have the urge to write a fiction novel, sell it, and label it nonfiction.


"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them." ~Galileo Galilei


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

As a story, it's a nice story.  As something that really happened -- not so much.

 

talking to a theist (?) who's interpretation of the texts is open to consideration.

I can see why jewish folk get pissed at being lumped with the wild-eyed christian sects.

Judaism. Those romans dragged it down into the catacombs and made themselves a frankenstein.

Yes, I'm even a Jew who believes very firmly in G-d.  Not to be confused with Jews I know who are Atheists, including Orthodox Jews I know who are Atheists.  Little known tidbit -- "You must believe in G-d" is NOT one of Rambam's 613 Mitzvot (commandments).  No one can be made to believe, or not believe, in G-d.  It might give a rabbi the creeps if you say "I don't believe in G-d", but there are rabbis who don't believe in G-d and they give me the creeps, so we're even.

And it is a REQUIREMENT to consider the texts and what we can do with them is pretty amazing stuff.  Lo bashamayim hi.  The Torah is not in Heaven.  It is not across the ocean.  It is an near to us as our breathing.  Those Roman bastards killed my ancestors and invented a new religion and want us to believe that new religion is real?  No fucking way.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

As a story, it's a nice story.  As something that really happened -- not so much.

talking to a theist (?) who's interpretation of the texts is open to consideration.

I can see why jewish folk get pissed at being lumped with the wild-eyed christian sects.

Judaism. Those romans dragged it down into the catacombs and made themselves a frankenstein.

Yes, I'm even a Jew who believes very firmly in G-d.  Not to be confused with Jews I know who are Atheists, including Orthodox Jews I know who are Atheists.  Little known tidbit -- "You must believe in G-d" is NOT one of Rambam's 613 Mitzvot (commandments).  No one can be made to believe, or not believe, in G-d.  It might give a rabbi the creeps if you say "I don't believe in G-d", but there are rabbis who don't believe in G-d and they give me the creeps, so we're even.

And it is a REQUIREMENT to consider the texts and what we can do with them is pretty amazing stuff.  Lo bashamayim hi.  The Torah is not in Heaven.  It is not across the ocean.  It is an near to us as our breathing.  Those Roman bastards killed my ancestors and invented a new religion and want us to believe that new religion is real?  No fucking way.

This superstitious nonsense about not spelling out the word God strikes me as really silly.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Time for coffee and pie. 

Time for coffee and pie.  But first -- a little debunking.

1). The first "light" in the universe didn't come from stars.  There wasn't even hydrogen, much less any protons, in the universe when the first light was produced.  That's standard Big Bang chronology.

2). No where does it say "all life was herbivorous".  That's in interpolation based on a mistranslated word for "food".  However, before there were animals to eat, all food came from non-animals.  Which is to say ... all life was initially herbivorous.  I'd be willing to construct a formal proof on that point.  Even though the Torah doesn't say that.

3). Did you know that planets had to form before stellar ignition?  If not, the solar wind would have blown all the material out of the inner solar system, out to the Oort Cloud where it hangs out today.

4). The Bible no where says that your interpretation of what it says incorrectly is the correct way to read the texts.  For that matter, the Torah also doesn't claim to be a science manual.

Hebrew has 22 consonants.  That's all.  Roots are made from three consonants -- a shoresh -- though some combinations of consonants don't exists as triliteral roots.  22 x 22 x 22 = 10,648.  You're complaining that a language with fewer than 10,648 different root meanings isn't giving you information at a level of detail expected in the modern world?  But you're not giving the Torah props for recording that the first light in the universe existed before anything that's "solid matter" even existed?  Unfair much?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:This

BobSpence1 wrote:

This superstitious nonsense about not spelling out the word God strikes me as really silly.

Do you refer to your parents by their first names, or as "Mom" and "Dad"?  And if you have children -- do they refer to you by your first name, or as "Dad"?

Respect is not a "silly superstition".  Respect is an important part of human existence, whether it's respecting G-d, respecting our parents, or respecting others based on their station in life.  You believe in "respect", right?  Not a silly superstition?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:KSMB

Atheistextremist wrote:
KSMB wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:
Judaism. Those romans dragged it down into the catacombs and made themselves a frankenstein.
If you're talking about romans persecuting christians who then had to hide in catacombs, that is, unsurprisingly and like most of both the NT and the OT, fiction.

I just was making a word picture.

I see Smiling I didn't catch that... guess I have been overexposed to silly christians who actually believe the 'persecuted christians hiding in the catacombs' myth.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:1). The

FurryCatHerder wrote:
1). The first "light" in the universe didn't come from stars.  There wasn't even hydrogen, much less any protons, in the universe when the first light was produced.  That's standard Big Bang chronology.

The first light in the universe wasn't the first event, not by a long shot. "Let there be light" is hardly an example of being "correct" about the beginning of the universe. It ignores entirely the Plank epoch, the Grand Unification epoch, the Electro-Weak epoch, the Inflationary epoch, the Baryogenisis epoch, the Quark epoch, the Hadron epoch, and the Lepton epoch - each very important in the end result of the universe we now know.

Had there been any mention of hyperons, baryons, quarks, hadrons, and leptons before photons, perhaps one could claim a descriptive start of the universe - but the explanation for "let there be light" coming first that parsimony demands is: We need light to see what we're doing, so god did too.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

This superstitious nonsense about not spelling out the word God strikes me as really silly.

Do you refer to your parents by their first names, or as "Mom" and "Dad"?  And if you have children -- do they refer to you by your first name, or as "Dad"?

Respect is not a "silly superstition".  Respect is an important part of human existence, whether it's respecting G-d, respecting our parents, or respecting others based on their station in life.  You believe in "respect", right?  Not a silly superstition?

That is not a good analogy. It would be relevant if the wrote "D-d" and "M-m", which would be equally silly, but still not have anything to do with respect.

I am not going to respect a silly, pointless superstition, any more than I respect the belief in God.

That convention is silly. It indicates a superstitious mind-set. Tying it to "respect" is even sillier. It devalues true respect, just as religious morality devalues and subverts true morality.

I can respect a person for their personal qualities, that should not be confused with requiring automatic respect for their sillier ideas.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Time

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Time for coffee and pie.  But first -- a little debunking.

1). The first "light" in the universe didn't come from stars.  There wasn't even hydrogen, much less any protons, in the universe when the first light was produced.  That's standard Big Bang chronology.

2). No where does it say "all life was herbivorous".  That's in interpolation based on a mistranslated word for "food".  However, before there were animals to eat, all food came from non-animals.  Which is to say ... all life was initially herbivorous.  I'd be willing to construct a formal proof on that point.  Even though the Torah doesn't say that.

3). Did you know that planets had to form before stellar ignition?  If not, the solar wind would have blown all the material out of the inner solar system, out to the Oort Cloud where it hangs out today.

4). The Bible no where says that your interpretation of what it says incorrectly is the correct way to read the texts.  For that matter, the Torah also doesn't claim to be a science manual.

Hebrew has 22 consonants.  That's all.  Roots are made from three consonants -- a shoresh -- though some combinations of consonants don't exists as triliteral roots.  22 x 22 x 22 = 10,648.  You're complaining that a language with fewer than 10,648 different root meanings isn't giving you information at a level of detail expected in the modern world?  But you're not giving the Torah props for recording that the first light in the universe existed before anything that's "solid matter" even existed?  Unfair much?

The first light was indeed from the earliest stars.

Planets formed at around the same time, or somewhat later than, the star, from the same cloud of gas that mostly collapsed to form the central star.

The solar wind is not remotely powerful enough to have that effect, other than in the immediate vicinity of the star. The inverse-square law reduction, which anything travelling in straight lines from a central source will experience, would reduce its effective strength to insignificance way before it got to the Oort cloud.

One of the problems of the Bible is that it internally provides no even indirect guide on how to interpret the text. The writers clearly did not envisage it would be read by people living in a very different culture and environment and language, where assumptions which were to them "obvious" and universal, so didn't need to be spelled out, would no longer apply.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:4). The

FurryCatHerder wrote:
4). The Bible no where says that your interpretation of what it says incorrectly is the correct way to read the texts.

Don't give me that crap. There is ambiguity in language, especially in metaphor-riddled religious texts written in old languages. There are multiple plausible ways of interpreting many different parts of the Bible, which is why everyone disagrees on their meaning. What are your criterion for determining the correct interpretation? Whatever saves the Bible from embarrassment?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
For that matter, the Torah also doesn't claim to be a science manual.

Why do you keep trying to defend Genesis, but, at the same time, saying that it's not a science manual? Is that a sneaky way of arguing the position and backpedaling at the same time? Do you agree that the Bible contradicts science or do you think it's infallible?

I don't think it's infallible, that's for sure. Mr. forgottobrush picked out a few verses that Creationists love to quote, but forgot to read all the verses that make the Bible look stupid. I can drown him in scientifically and morally objectionable material. 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Hebrew has 22 consonants.  That's all.  Roots are made from three consonants -- a shoresh -- though some combinations of consonants don't exists as triliteral roots.  22 x 22 x 22 = 10,648.  You're complaining that a language with fewer than 10,648 different root meanings isn't giving you information at a level of detail expected in the modern world?  But you're not giving the Torah props for recording that the first light in the universe existed before anything that's "solid matter" even existed?  Unfair much?

Oh yeah, you're right; I'm being extremely unfair to God. Surely, if he had access to a more modern and complex language, he could have wrote a better book.

Yep, when the Bible explains that God punishes snakes by taking away their legs and commands us to kill our family members for believing in other Gods (edit: being homosexual, working on Sunday, etc.), he didn't actually mean that, right? God just didn't have a better way of explaining what he really wanted to say. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
From http://www.space.com/sc

From http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_light_010808.html

Quote:

 

Researchers say that shortly after the Big Bang, the universe was loaded mostly with hydrogen and helium that was ionized -- too hot to remain in a stable state. For about 300,000 years, the universe expanded and cooled, and the gases began to recombine and stabilize to neutral states.

The universe then entered the dark ages, estimated to have lasted about half a billion years. All the while, clumps of matter developed. Then the first stars, galaxies and quasars formed. Quasars are incredibly bright objects thought to harbor black holes with masses billions of times that of our Sun.

Like morning sunlight burning through fog, the radiation from these new objects made the opaque gas of the universe become transparent by splitting atoms of hydrogen into free electrons and protons, say researchers, who call this period one of re-ionization

Don't see how that fits the Genesis story all that well...

Stars aren't mentioned till the fourth 'day', yet in reality they came before 'light'.

The Earth was all dry land long before water began to accumulate from icy bodies falling from space.

It has birds being created at the same time as sea creatures, and before land creatures, whereas birds emerged after the age of dinosaurs, from which they evolved, long, long after the first land creatures. The first flying creatures were insects, then later flying reptiles (pterosaurs).

Genesis got just about everything wrong.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The first

BobSpence1 wrote:

The first light was indeed from the earliest stars.

Nonsense.  Not in any standard Big Bang chronology does "light" come that late.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Planets formed at around the same time, or somewhat later than, the star, from the same cloud of gas that mostly collapsed to form the central star.

Likewise, nonsense.  While they DO form from the same cloud, "later than" is an impossibility.

BobSpence1 wrote:
The solar wind is not remotely powerful enough to have that effect, other than in the immediate vicinity of the star. The inverse-square law reduction, which anything travelling in straight lines from a central source will experience, would reduce its effective strength to insignificance way before it got to the Oort cloud.

The solar wind is precisely what sweeps the interior of a solar system clean of planet forming dust and debris.  If it's not gravitationally bound to something when the proto-star becomes a T Tauri star, it's going to be heading outward until it is swept up by something that has the gravity to do it, or the solar pressure and gravity balance.  The pressure from a T Tauri start, which is before the star enters the Main Sequence, is greater than afterward.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
4). The Bible no where says that your interpretation of what it says incorrectly is the correct way to read the texts.

Don't give me that crap. There is ambiguity in language, especially in metaphor-riddled religious texts written in old languages. There are multiple plausible ways of interpreting many different parts of the Bible, which is why everyone disagrees on their meaning. What are your criterion for determining the correct interpretation? Whatever saves the Bible from embarrassment?

No, I'm dealing with the texts the way a Jew deals with Jewish texts, not the way a Christian mangles them, and certainly not as some kind of "Ridicule at all costs" adversary the way you're approaching them.

butterbattle wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
For that matter, the Torah also doesn't claim to be a science manual.

Why do you keep trying to defend Genesis, but, at the same time, saying that it's not a science manual? Is that a sneaky way of arguing the position and backpedaling at the same time? Do you agree that the Bible contradicts science or do you think it's infallible?

You'd have to establish that the Torah is a Science manual.  Then we can talk about contradictions and fallibility.  Until then, I don't know how to address your mistaken beliefs other than asking you to show me the verse where the Torah claims to be a Science manual.

butterbattle wrote:
I don't think it's infallible, that's for sure. Mr. forgottobrush picked out a few verses that Creationists love to quote, but forgot to read all the verses that make the Bible look stupid. I can drown him in scientifically and morally objectionable material.

I'm sure you can.  But you'd have to find where the Torah claims to be a Science manual, and then ignore historical advances in the understanding of morals and ethics to do all that.  You might want to read the Talmud, while you're in the neighborhood, along with Responsa by various rabbis over the past 2,000 years or so.  Judaism isn't a static religion.

We're not Christians.  It's our book, it's our history, Christians don't get to decide what it says any more than you do.  Sorry -- you're not in the club, tough luck.  Better luck next time.  Neener-neener.

butterbattle wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Hebrew has 22 consonants.  That's all.  Roots are made from three consonants -- a shoresh -- though some combinations of consonants don't exists as triliteral roots.  22 x 22 x 22 = 10,648.  You're complaining that a language with fewer than 10,648 different root meanings isn't giving you information at a level of detail expected in the modern world?  But you're not giving the Torah props for recording that the first light in the universe existed before anything that's "solid matter" even existed?  Unfair much?

Oh yeah, you're right; I'm being extremely unfair to God. Surely, if he had access to a more modern and complex language, he could have wrote a better book.

Right, and if the PEOPLE reading the book 3,500 years ago were able to understand a more modern and complex language, I'm sure that we'd all have our flying cars and be taking vacations on Mars or a large asteroid by now.

butterbattle wrote:
Yep, when the Bible explains that God punishes snakes by taking away their legs and commands us to kill our family members for believing in other Gods (edit: being homosexual, working on Sunday, etc.), he didn't actually mean that, right? God just didn't have a better way of explaining what he really wanted to say. 

Let me know when you find the verse that says the Torah is a Science manual.

And it's working between Friday at sundown and an hour past sundown on Saturday.  And it isn't even WORK-WORK.  And it has NOTHING to do with BEING homosexual, and probably nothing at all to do with homosexuality, period.  I realize that grasping the Torah requires you study ancient history, but at least try to get the parts that can be gotten right, right.

As for killing people -- sorry, not so much on that happening at all.

Anything else you'd care to distort?  I'm also skilled at debunking the nonsense from anti-Semitic websites, if you get so frustrated that you have to start cutting and pasting from them.  Because sooner or later, that's what you do.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:No, I'm

FurryCatHerder wrote:
No, I'm dealing with the texts the way a Jew deals with Jewish texts,

And how does a Jew deal with Jewish texts?

Is the Torah infallible or not? Is it only inspired by God? Is it against your religion to tell me?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
You'd have to establish that the Torah is a Science manual.  Then we can talk about contradictions and fallibility.  Until then, I don't know how to address your mistaken beliefs other than asking you to show me the verse where the Torah claims to be a Science manual.

Of course the Torah never claims that it's a science manual. It doesn't need to be a science manual for my arguments to hold.

It's supposed to be the word of God, which means that it's supposed to be more perfect than any other book in existence. It should be able to refrain from explicitly making incorrect statements about observable reality, which it fails to do so on a regular basis. 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
We're not Christians.  It's our book, it's our history, Christians don't get to decide what it says any more than you do.  Sorry -- you're not in the club, tough luck.  Better luck next time.  Neener-neener.

So "your people" have a monopoly on what these texts are trying to say because it's part of your tradition? Ha! 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Right, and if the PEOPLE reading the book 3,500 years ago were able to understand a more modern and complex language, I'm sure that we'd all have our flying cars and be taking vacations on Mars or a large asteroid by now.

Haha, well, I didn't say he needed to explain rocket science (although even a few equations could have converted millions of people). Again, I fail to see why the word of God cannot be better than this.

And, I don't even understand why the people at the time needed to know the language in order for God to make a book in that language. Is God only allowed to use a language in scripture after it's already popular? 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
And it's working between Friday at sundown and an hour past sundown on Saturday.  And it isn't even WORK-WORK.  And it has NOTHING to do with BEING homosexual, and probably nothing at all to do with homosexuality, period.  I realize that grasping the Torah requires you study ancient history, but at least try to get the parts that can be gotten right, right.

As for killing people -- sorry, not so much on that happening at all.

Anything else you'd care to distort?  I'm also skilled at debunking the nonsense from anti-Semitic websites, if you get so frustrated that you have to start cutting and pasting from them.  Because sooner or later, that's what you do.

Huh? I'm talking about what's written in the Torah, not Jewish practices.

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Wake up Furry for fuck's sake

 

I need a good argument to sustain me in my hour of tedium.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:The

FurryCatHerder wrote:
The solar wind is precisely what sweeps the interior of a solar system clean of planet forming dust and debris.  If it's not gravitationally bound to something when the proto-star becomes a T Tauri star, it's going to be heading outward until it is swept up by something that has the gravity to do it, or the solar pressure and gravity balance.  The pressure from a T Tauri start, which is before the star enters the Main Sequence, is greater than afterward.

So... those T Tauri stars found with disks around them, what would they be...?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The first light was indeed from the earliest stars.

Nonsense.  Not in any standard Big Bang chronology does "light" come that late.

Depends what you mean by "light". Photons certainly dominated in the earliest stages, occasionally condensing into particle pairs. But the density was so great that they were just jostling around, nothing like what is understood as 'light'. The fireball was not transparent.

It first became transparent to light around 700,000 years, when things had cooled to the extent that hydrogen and helium atoms could form. This is the point I was referring to, although you could argue that photons were there first.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Planets formed at around the same time, or somewhat later than, the star, from the same cloud of gas that mostly collapsed to form the central star.

Likewise, nonsense.  While they DO form from the same cloud, "later than" is an impossibility.

You have it backward: 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

"The various planets are thought to have formed from the solar nebula, the disc-shaped cloud of gas and dust left over from the Sun's formation. The currently accepted method by which the planets formed is known as accretion, in which the planets began as dust grains in orbit around the central protostar. Through direct contact, these grains formed into clumps between one and ten kilometres (km) in diameter, which in turn collided to form larger bodies (planetesimals) of ~5 km in size. These gradually increased through further collisions, growing at the rate of centimetres per year over the course of the next few million years."

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
The solar wind is not remotely powerful enough to have that effect, other than in the immediate vicinity of the star. The inverse-square law reduction, which anything travelling in straight lines from a central source will experience, would reduce its effective strength to insignificance way before it got to the Oort cloud.

The solar wind is precisely what sweeps the interior of a solar system clean of planet forming dust and debris.  If it's not gravitationally bound to something when the proto-star becomes a T Tauri star, it's going to be heading outward until it is swept up by something that has the gravity to do it, or the solar pressure and gravity balance.  The pressure from a T Tauri start, which is before the star enters the Main Sequence, is greater than afterward.

OK, I may have under-estimated the effect of the solar wind, but you have massively over-estimated it.

"Uranus and Neptune are believed to have formed after Jupiter and Saturn did, when the strong solar wind had blown away much of the disc material" (my underline).

The density of the wind will fall as the inverse square law as it gets further away from the Sun. Its velocity will be falling due to the gravitational force of the Sun, so the effective pressure will be falling faster than the inverse-square.

WTF do you mean by "gravitationally bound"?? It is continuously subject to the gravitational force of the Sun and planets, falling off at the standard rate. That will not change as the Sun evolves, since it is only dependent on the mass of the Sun. it will only have a significant 'sweeping' effect on the smallest particles, so as they accrete into larger chunks it becomes increasingly irrelevant.

The 'pressure' of the Solar Wind is purely due to the momentum of the particles of which it is composed, not due to any continuing 'pressure' from the Sun. 

Some components of the Solar wind are travelling at less than Solar escape velocity, so they will eventually slow down to zero and start falling back toward the sun. This component tends to be twice as dense as the fast particles travelling at a 100km/s or so greater than escape velocity. The fast ones will eventually reach inter-stellar space travelling at a few hundred km/s.

It is assumed that the solar wind would have taken between three and ten million years to sweep away all the gas and dust and so stop planet formation.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Dogma Hater
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:We're

FurryCatHerder wrote:
We're not Christians.  It's our book, it's our history, Christians don't get to decide what it says any more than you do.  Sorry -- you're not in the club, tough luck.  Better luck next time.  Neener-neener.

Jews plagiarized the works of other western Asians peoples when writing the Tanakh.  One example is the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was the inspiration for much of Genesis.  I find your hypocritical attitude to be amusing:  "Keep your filthy hands off of that thing that I stole, it's mine!"


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Dogma Hater

Dogma Hater wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
We're not Christians.  It's our book, it's our history, Christians don't get to decide what it says any more than you do.  Sorry -- you're not in the club, tough luck.  Better luck next time.  Neener-neener.

Jews plagiarized the works of other western Asians peoples when writing the Tanakh.  One example is the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was the inspiration for much of Genesis.  I find your hypocritical attitude to be amusing:  "Keep your filthy hands off of that thing that I stole, it's mine!"

Ooohh, good point. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
No, I'm dealing with the texts the way a Jew deals with Jewish texts,

And how does a Jew deal with Jewish texts?

Is the Torah infallible or not? Is it only inspired by God? Is it against your religion to tell me?

Of course the Torah is infallible.  The question is never whether or not it's "infallible", the question is "what the heck does it really mean?"

We were studying Torah this morning and a man said "Well, I think that's sexist" and I said "Only because you read it in a sexist manner.  What if it is really saying blah blah blah".  And I changed NONE of the words, only the lens the words are being read through.  Which my Rabbi thought was very clever.

butterbattle wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
You'd have to establish that the Torah is a Science manual.  Then we can talk about contradictions and fallibility.  Until then, I don't know how to address your mistaken beliefs other than asking you to show me the verse where the Torah claims to be a Science manual.

Of course the Torah never claims that it's a science manual. It doesn't need to be a science manual for my arguments to hold.

Proof By Repeated Assertion much?

butterbattle wrote:
It's supposed to be the word of God, which means that it's supposed to be more perfect than any other book in existence. It should be able to refrain from explicitly making incorrect statements about observable reality, which it fails to do so on a regular basis.

Before you can make that claim, you have to demonstrate that it's a Science manual.  SO ... construct a sound logical argument, not just Proof by Repeated Assertion, that it's a Science manual and then we'll discuss it.

butterbattle wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
We're not Christians.  It's our book, it's our history, Christians don't get to decide what it says any more than you do.  Sorry -- you're not in the club, tough luck.  Better luck next time.  Neener-neener.

So "your people" have a monopoly on what these texts are trying to say because it's part of your tradition? Ha!

Well, it's our book.  I'm sorry that you feel you get to claim some kind of bizarre ownership over other people's property, but you don't.  It really sucks trying to co-opt other cultures property and being told "No", doesn't it?

butterbattle wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Right, and if the PEOPLE reading the book 3,500 years ago were able to understand a more modern and complex language, I'm sure that we'd all have our flying cars and be taking vacations on Mars or a large asteroid by now.

Haha, well, I didn't say he needed to explain rocket science (although even a few equations could have converted millions of people). Again, I fail to see why the word of God cannot be better than this.

Not sure if you knew this, but we don't even have numbers.  Or maybe you didn't know that.  Our cousins invented numbers.  The Arabic Numerals.  We still use letters.  The number 18?  Same as the word for "Life" -- "Chai".  Chet-yod.  So ... not sure what we'd have for "equations".

butterbattle wrote:
And, I don't even understand why the people at the time needed to know the language in order for God to make a book in that language. Is God only allowed to use a language in scripture after it's already popular?

Since the Torah isn't a dead book ("Lo bashamayim hi" -- google that), we're not done with it.

butterbattle wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
And it's working between Friday at sundown and an hour past sundown on Saturday.  And it isn't even WORK-WORK.  And it has NOTHING to do with BEING homosexual, and probably nothing at all to do with homosexuality, period.  I realize that grasping the Torah requires you study ancient history, but at least try to get the parts that can be gotten right, right.

As for killing people -- sorry, not so much on that happening at all.

Anything else you'd care to distort?  I'm also skilled at debunking the nonsense from anti-Semitic websites, if you get so frustrated that you have to start cutting and pasting from them.  Because sooner or later, that's what you do.

Huh? I'm talking about what's written in the Torah, not Jewish practices.

You've yet to establish that you're actually talking about what's written in the Torah.  You still seem to think it's a Science manual.  When you can establish that you're actually talking about what's written in the Torah, we can begin.  Until then, it's not your book, you don't get to co-opt it, and you definitely don't get to tell me what it does or doesn't mean.  Become a Jew, then we'll argue like a couple of Jews about what it does or doesn't mean.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3683
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:  

FurryCatHerder wrote:
   Well, it's our book.  I'm sorry that you feel you get to claim some kind of bizarre ownership over other people's property, but you don't.  It really sucks trying to co-opt other cultures property and being told "No", doesn't it?

  Keep it.  I don't read fiction anyway.

 

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Stop with this stupid chant

Stop with this stupid chant that the Torah is not a "Science Manual".

It is claimed to convey truth in some form.

If it makes statements about the nature and origin of man, life, and the Universe, they can be legitimately and logically challenged. 

If those claims are clearly inconsistent with known reality, it can be legitimately criticized.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Stop with

BobSpence1 wrote:

Stop with this stupid chant that the Torah is not a "Science Manual".

It is claimed to convey truth in some form.

If it makes statements about the nature and origin of man, life, and the Universe, they can be legitimately and logically challenged. 

If those claims are clearly inconsistent with known reality, it can be legitimately criticized.

Bob, as distasteful as I've found interaction with you to be, you've got to establish the meaning of a text before it can be analyzed for what you've decided to analyze it for.  It's not my problem that this pisses you off.

When you've established that it's a Science manual -- and you and the rest of your posse still have yet to even start with that little exercise -- then we'll discuss it as though it's a Science manual, though if you =do= manage to somehow prove (which you can't) that it's a Science manual, we'll then progress to the "it's a JEWISH Science manual" stage at which point you're still screwed on account of ... not a Jew!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryHatCerder

FurryHatCerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Stop with this stupid chant that the Torah is not a "Science Manual".

It is claimed to convey truth in some form.

If it makes statements about the nature and origin of man, life, and the Universe, they can be legitimately and logically challenged. 

If those claims are clearly inconsistent with known reality, it can be legitimately criticized.

Bob, as distasteful as I've found interaction with you to be, you've got to establish the meaning of a text before it can be analyzed for what you've decided to analyze it for.  It's not my problem that this pisses you off.

When you've established that it's a Science manual -- and you and the rest of your posse still have yet to even start with that little exercise -- then we'll discuss it as though it's a Science manual, though if you =do= manage to somehow prove (which you can't) that it's a Science manual, we'll then progress to the "it's a JEWISH Science manual" stage at which point you're still screwed on account of ... not a Jew!

So, it does not claim to contain truths about the world?

OR does it not contain anything which even implies or assumes anything about the physical nature of the Universe? Or of the benefits or problems of various foods? Or any comments on the causes and recommended responses to diseases?

So which of those statements applies? One or other would need to apply for your assertions to make sense.

EDIT:

Your persistent dodging of the actual point in my question on this with that "Science Manual" crap is really annoying. You are refusing to address the fact that your book contains the same creation myths as Genesis in the Christian Bible. The words are clearly describing the sequence of creation of everything by God, and is equally clearly recounting primitive and erroneous beliefs about the Universe and origins, which people at the time it was written did believe as explicit truth.

What is your problem? Do you not want to admit you actual believe that crap in some literal sense, or alternatively that your book has clearly problematic content to anyone with even a modest level of science literacy?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The Web of Life

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Stop with this stupid chant that the Torah is not a "Science Manual".

It is claimed to convey truth in some form.

If it makes statements about the nature and origin of man, life, and the Universe, they can be legitimately and logically challenged. 

If those claims are clearly inconsistent with known reality, it can be legitimately criticized.

Bob, as distasteful as I've found interaction with you to be, you've got to establish the meaning of a text before it can be analyzed for what you've decided to analyze it for.  It's not my problem that this pisses you off.

When you've established that it's a Science manual -- and you and the rest of your posse still have yet to even start with that little exercise -- then we'll discuss it as though it's a Science manual, though if you =do= manage to somehow prove (which you can't) that it's a Science manual, we'll then progress to the "it's a JEWISH Science manual" stage at which point you're still screwed on account of ... not a Jew!

 

FurryCat - when you say Torah is not a science manual are you saying you believe the things in it like say, the Genesis creation story, are analogies, interpretations, mythical explanations rather than actual Fundy-style word for word scientific descriptions of events that actually happened?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

FurryHatCerder wrote:

When you've established that it's a Science manual -- and you and the rest of your posse still have yet to even start with that little exercise -- then we'll discuss it as though it's a Science manual, though if you =do= manage to somehow prove (which you can't) that it's a Science manual, we'll then progress to the "it's a JEWISH Science manual" stage at which point you're still screwed on account of ... not a Jew!

So, it does not claim to contain truths about the world?

Didn't say that.  I said it doesn't claim to be a Science manual.

BobSpence1 wrote:
OR does it not contain anything which even implies or assumes anything about the physical nature of the Universe? Or of the benefits or problems of various foods? Or any comments on the causes and recommended responses to diseases?

You mean, "Don't eat shrimp because they are filthy bottom feeders and you might get sick"?  No, it doesn't say anything like that.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

When you've established that it's a Science manual -- and you and the rest of your posse still have yet to even start with that little exercise -- then we'll discuss it as though it's a Science manual, though if you =do= manage to somehow prove (which you can't) that it's a Science manual, we'll then progress to the "it's a JEWISH Science manual" stage at which point you're still screwed on account of ... not a Jew!

 

FurryCat - when you say Torah is not a science manual are you saying you believe the things in it like say, the Genesis creation story, are analogies, interpretations, mythical explanations rather than actual Fundy-style word for word scientific descriptions of events that actually happened?

LOL!

Yeah, we're not Christians.  There's a solid Jewish tradition that the text is open to interpretation, and that multiple interpretations and understandings are all equally valid.

There are parts that cannot be interpreted in too flexible of a manner and parts that can be.  There are also parts that have to be read in context and within the tradition.

For example, the "problem" of two "different" creation accounts has been a topic of discussion for millenia.  Consider the first account in which the Torah says that G-d created male and female at the same time, then the second account in which G-d creates Adam ("man&quotEye-wink first, then gets around to creating Eve (her names wasn't Eve).  There's a tradition which says that Adam's first wife (the one G-d created the first go round) insisted that Adam treat her equally since they were created at the same time.  Adam refused, so his first wife (Lillith) split, turning Adam into a lonely bachelor.  G-d had to intervene and create a new wife for him, and look how THAT turned out.

Sounds like the way Christians deal with the Torah?  Not at all?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
That's what I thought

 

But some christians are more evolved than others. Oddly your typical American christian tends to the fundamentalist protestant thing but we have plenty of that stuff here, too.

I find it hard to accept anyone can have a concrete end-to-end position when our knowledge base is so unsubstantial and so recent. But it's tough to convince a christian that they

should take into account things we don't yet know. Thanks to the lake of fire there's a deadline on believing and those little tracts that show doubters in car crashes and in the midst of

coronaries with demons standing around them tend to wick up the pressure. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:But

Atheistextremist wrote:


But some christians are more evolved than others. Oddly your typical American christian tends to the fundamentalist protestant thing but we have plenty of that stuff here, too.

Your typical American Christian tends towards being an atheist.  Fundamentalists are very much a minority.  It's just that they are a fanatical minority and are ruining the world for the rest of everyone else.

Quote:
I find it hard to accept anyone can have a concrete end-to-end position when our knowledge base is so unsubstantial and so recent. But it's tough to convince a christian that they should take into account things we don't yet know. Thanks to the lake of fire there's a deadline on believing and those little tracts that show doubters in car crashes and in the midst of coronaries with demons standing around them tend to wick up the pressure.

It's not enough in Judaism to just write a horror novel and claim it's divine scripture.  Normally someone has to establish their credentials as a prophet.  Assuming the writer of Revelations is the same as the writer of the Gospel of John, the guy wasn't even a Jew in the first place.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
That sounds interesting

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Assuming the writer of Revelations is the same as the writer of the Gospel of John, the guy wasn't even a Jew in the first place.

Tell more about this - I don't know enough to know about this disconnection. John was obviously on ecstasy when he wrote John and I don't how the Council of Nicaea got hold of that early Nostradamus but revelations to me - and i've read it a few times so far - seems pretty wild stuff. It's like an apple bob. End of the world, coming of the beast, seas turn to blood/wormwood, great war, sound of trumpets, blah, blah. There's something for everyone in there somewhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3683
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Your

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Your typical American Christian tends towards being an atheist. 

  

   That's very interesting FCH.    In your experience does this tendency exist before or after the homosexual,  ooops, I mean the Christian.... undergoes reparative therapy ?  Perhaps we atheists should start our own version of Exodus International. ?      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International

  I hung on to my faith as long as I could until I finally gave in, now I'm god/God/G-d free...and I no longer experience those troubling theistic urges.

 

 

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Assuming the writer of Revelations is the same as the writer of the Gospel of John, the guy wasn't even a Jew in the first place.

Tell more about this - I don't know enough to know about this disconnection. John was obviously on ecstasy when he wrote John and I don't how the Council of Nicaea got hold of that early Nostradamus but revelations to me - and i've read it a few times so far - seems pretty wild stuff. It's like an apple bob. End of the world, coming of the beast, seas turn to blood/wormwood, great war, sound of trumpets, blah, blah. There's something for everyone in there somewhere.

The "disconnection" is in the Gospel of John.  John the Evangelist is the primary source for "Jesus is God" beliefs within Christianity.  The Jewish Messiah isn't G-d.  He's just a guy from the Davidic line who either establishes world peace, and all the other good things -- rebuilds the Temple, gets all the Jews to obey the Torah, is King of Israel, etc -- or who shows up after we've done all those things ourselves.

Much of John is just plain NOT Judaism.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."