If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

That's not what special pleading is at all. What special pleading is, is making an exception to a generally understood rule or convention, in order to incorrectly assert that your position is sound, when it really isn't. I have stated that I believe all scriptures of every religion to be myth. While they may reference real historical places, people, and yes, on occasion even events, I believe it is unwise to assume any of it as authentic unless verified from outside the scriptures.

which is the process of determining that everything that does not fit with what one thinks is true is myth.  In other words, you justify your own understanding based on reasoning that has no basis rather than considering the alternative... this does go a bit beyond just special pleading, I'll give you that.

 

No it simply isn't. Your wording is so imprecise that it's difficult to tell what you even mean, but let me try to understand. You are saying that by not considering the bible (or any scripture) to even be possibly authentic, I am engaging in special pleading? Because if that's what you say, then you are wrong about what special pleading is. Special pleading has to do specifically with making an exception. What exception am I making? 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:it is as much

caposkia wrote:

it is as much as it's good reason to cast doubt on most of history of that time.  see, the non-consequentials you speak of are common in texts of history... so either we take that view universally and we really have no history to understand or we have to accept that the non-consequentials really are just that and that what matters is the contextual story and not the details in between that don't change the storyline.

Every historian would disagree with you. Historians spend a significant amount of time studying inconsequential details. Did you know that the pilgrims didn't really wear buckles on their hats? Completely inconsequential, but by studying that little detail you can learn that much of the mythology surrounding the Pilgrims and the story of Thanksgiving is absolutely false. I can't remember exactly why I had become interested in belt buckles on pilgrims hats, but it led me down the rabbit hole to learn that pretty much everything I learned about Pilgrims in grade school was wrong. And that the myth of the buckles on the hat were of the same origin of several falsehoods about the pilgrims which is widely taught in grade schools throughout American as historical fact. And because of my research about the buckles, I learned that the entire storyline that had been presented to me was fiction. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Considering the topic of drowning people in the Noah flood, yes, we cannot back that up in history, however there are many aspects of scripture that has been supported in history, so much so that it's getting harder and harder to suggest other parts that have no support couldn't be accurate.   It's almost impossible to find sufficient evidence of a comment made by someone so long ago.  But what follows through is what you see.  IOW, if God is real, has he since destroyed humanity???

Really? Name one supernatural aspect of the bible that is supported by history. Just one.  

 

caposkia wrote:

that still doesn't answer the question... also one has to consider the poetic liberties the author took in writing it.  Were they trying to be chronological or poetic???  Hebrew would suggest poetic if we really want to get down to the nitty gritty here.  I still adhere to the fact that there was a light at the beginning that was sufficient for photosynthesis regardless of the age of the sun and when it was said to have been created.  Thus the scriptures are still scientifically accurate.

So I'm only on the first page of the Bible and already I shouldn't believe it any more than I believe Seabiscuit because of "poetic license". What if God saying all the people were evil was just poetic license?

 

caposkia wrote:

no one claims the Bible as an unabridged historical record... rather it has stories that paint the picture of history back through creation and through the view of a particular family tree.

Yet you claim that when God is reported as saying something that I should believe that God did in fact say it. So insofar as quotes from God, you ARE claiming it is an accurate historical record. 

 

caposkia wrote:

here's the problem with this perspective... sure the people of that time were ignorant of what we know now.  The problem is, if they are so ignorant, what are we saying of over 80% of humanity today?  IN fact, to believe something written by ignorant ancients who believed something blatently false because they didn't know better today is to suggest that humanity has gone backwards in ignorance because with all teh knowledge we have today, we should easily be able to debunk a story written by an ignorant ancient that personified an inanimate non-existent being.  Yet here we are, with over 80% of humanity believing in a god of some sort and basing it off ancient writings.

Is there even a question that most people are ignorant? As individuals, humans remain extremely ignorant. However, as a group we are far less ignorant than we were back then. We have the tools to learn information much more easily. Unfortunately, people often don't use them. For example, your assertion above that plants could have existed before the sun is amazingly ignorant. This could easily be confirmed by googling and reading up on the latest research about the nature of the sun and the origin of plant life on Earth where you will find thousands of well researched scientific journals on these subjects. If you are skeptical, you will have access to most of the raw data, the experiments conducted, the results and criticism from other scientists all from the comfort of your home. Instead, you prefer to remain ignorant and that preference puts you with the majority.

 

caposkia wrote:
  

unfortunately for that case you post above, the more puzzle pieces I find, the clearer scripture is for me.  i don't stick to any "original guess" as you say.  My original guess would have left me a non-believer.

Bullshit. I pointed out the problems with the flood occurring 200,000 years ago then provided archaeological evidence and you changed the story to 2 million years ago. You are assuming that the flood happened and have gone at great lengths to rationalize it. I pointed out that it wasn't in any of the puzzle pieces we have, so you looked for an era where we have fewer puzzle pieces and claimed it happened there.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Don't you agree that when a source is demonstrably wrong on one fact that it is a good reason to be cautious in accepting its accuracy on other facts?

caposkia wrote:

sure, except that all of history has this problem.. so should i be cautious of accepting everything I've been taught in history??? and where do I draw the line?  Again, you're trying to make mountains out of mole hills.  an ancient person messed up a name or a quantity and you're trying to make a case out of it... that seems a bit illogical doesn't it?

You should be cautions accepting everything you have been taught in history. You will find that much of what is taught in grade school and high school is false. A good historian never relies on a single source before determining something is historical fact. They draw on numerous sources and seek archaeological evidence to support them. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if numbers and names are wrong and dating is not exact, why should I trust the reports of what God and Jesus said as exact? 

becasue history shows where we can find it that the claimed events still happened whether on a smaller scale or in a location named something different.  The thing is usually names are changed due to change in authority and changed more frequently than now, so it was not uncommon to see different names.  Stories told have an intention of catching the listeners ear, so it sounds more appealing to inflate numbers and quantity.  Does that make what is being told untrue?  of course not.

Where does history show that Noah's flood happened?

 

caposkia wrote:

mythology makes no sense because this God doesn't follow mythical rules. 

What rules?

 

caposkia wrote:

for me, it's consistent with what I know of God.  For example.. I knew when growing up in a catholic church that this is not who God is.  I also knew when my dad became a JW that this is not who God is.  Everything I was taught and everything I knew taught me about a different God than I know now.  scripture taught me of the God I know now and I knew that God before I had read a single word.  It wasn't my upbringing that taught me that, so what was it?

Of course it is consistent with what you know of God. Everything you know of God comes from the bible and your interpretation of it. If you had grown up in an isolated culture that didn't have contact with any Christians you would not know anything of god.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Mythology is often based on a true story

Mythology often uses real people

mythology often uses real places

mythology often uses real events

...

When then is an assumed mythological story considered fact?  

When there is evidence that it is fact. 

 

caposkia wrote:

again, you're trying to blame a judge for doing his job.  What you're suggesting when putting it in context with god is that someone molested a child and put them in danger, they were tried for their actions, but the judge is to blame for the ultimate suffering for the children... YOur reasoning doesn't connect.

If the judge ordered the child killed I would blame the judge. 

 

caposkia wrote:

In your example, the caretaker was teh person responsible for the children... when in scripture did it say God was babysitting the children?  Where can we justify that God was ever responsible for those children?

When he decided to kill them. When our society kills a parent we generally accept that it is our responsibility to provide care for the child. We don't put someone on death row and throw their kid on the street to fend for themselves. (or as God did, strap the kid into the electric chair next to daddy)

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why isn't it ingrained in my heart? My gut reaction to God is that he is barbaric and repulsive and always has been since I first heard the stories. Did he mess up when ingraining morality in my heart?

I think it is ingrained in your heart... otherwise you wouldn't have such a problem with this story

Why would god ingrain a morality that makes me find him repulsive?

 

caposkia wrote:

or was it us that did a pretty lousy job of holding on to that engravement...?  Consider that a child would look upon that act and see it as confusing and terrible... yet as an adult, that same person might commit such an act... so are you suggesting it wares off over time?  or does something else happen?

Kids often don't find such acts terrible, indeed kids tend to be quite gleeful about the prospect of killing. We are socialized into our morality. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Or the third option... children are born to rape... something tells me you wouldn't take that angle, or your case for God being evil in the flood falls through the floor.

Since children generally don't have a sexual drive they aren't likely to rape anyone. But yeah, kids are born with a pretty blank moral slate. They are socialized into morality and then develop their own based on their experiences, preferences and values. How does that ruin my case against God's morality? My claim is that morality is subjective and has changed dramatically over time and I argue that those changes are for the better. In biblical times, rape in war was not only acceptable, it was expected as a reward. In biblical times, slavery was common and viewed as right. In our times, we call these things immoral. I think that change makes for a more pleasant society to live in, don't you?

You claim that morality is objective from God and hasn't changed since biblical times.

 

caposkia wrote:

of course... see, Job, many have questioned God's laws... all have failed to justify their perspective.

Yet another story where God killed innocents. 

 

caposkia wrote:

if you did, you would see Gods actions as just.  You do not view morality the same with God... The case I hold is that God created the very moral ground that we are born with in our hearts..  God is the judge and executioner.  God literally passed judgement on a culture for their actions.   

If our government were to bomb Syria and kill civilians I would find the action immoral even though they are effectively acting as judge and executioner. (Why they even warned them!) I apparently don't give judges the same leeway to murder innocents that you do. You clearly have a very perverse morality.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Tassman
atheist
Tassman's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2010-06-28
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:If the God of

Jimenezj wrote:

If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

 

Because the propagation of ignorance is a bad thing, that's why, especially when accompanied by the discrediting of science-based knowledge - as it often is by the fundies.    

____________________________________________________________

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." – Christopher Hitchens


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:As an adult

caposkia wrote:
As an adult who understands highschool science you already grasp the now simple concepts that take you a while to learn and compile through your schooling years... typically you can summarize particular points that have to do with the topic at hand no problem... I'm not asking you to summarize high school science in general, taht would be non-sensical to the post...

Ridiculous. You aren't an adult who understands highschool science, so even if such a summary of chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, algebra, and a few dozen other subjects were possible (and it isn't), you wouldn't understand it anyway.
You are missing years of education that would be required to understand how wrong you are and I'm not willing to provide that education without the same paycheque any teacher or tutor would receive for doing so.

Good try though.. want another go at it?

caposkia wrote:
I see what you're seeing now... honestly.

You think you do, but you don't. Because then you said this:

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: hope you see

caposkia wrote:
hope you see why one part that might not work doesn't negate the whole.

If you had understood, you wouldn't have said that.

caposkia wrote:
let's completely hijack the thread with nonsense then, sounds like a plan.

Your specialty.

caposkia wrote:
no, no you haven't.

Yes, I have. Nothing you say will change the facts, and continuing on your childish and delusional course merely shows your foolishness repeatedly. So please do continue. Every now and then I'll mention which page I refuted the equation on so newcomers can find it easily and join me in laughing at your delusions. I'll start now.

For anyone who cares to see how I easily and absolutely ripped his equation apart; Page 13, post #628 is the beginning of a short series of refutations. The equation itself can be found (and laughed at) on the same page, post #626. I didn't bother refuting every part of the equation, because it wasn't necessary; as anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge can attest to.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:No it

Jabberwocky wrote:

No it simply isn't. Your wording is so imprecise that it's difficult to tell what you even mean, but let me try to understand. You are saying that by not considering the bible (or any scripture) to even be possibly authentic, I am engaging in special pleading? Because if that's what you say, then you are wrong about what special pleading is. Special pleading has to do specifically with making an exception. What exception am I making? 

 

It also has to do with ignoring the counter evidence, which is the part I feel you fall under.  See Wiki on this (search special pleading)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

it is as much as it's good reason to cast doubt on most of history of that time.  see, the non-consequentials you speak of are common in texts of history... so either we take that view universally and we really have no history to understand or we have to accept that the non-consequentials really are just that and that what matters is the contextual story and not the details in between that don't change the storyline.

Every historian would disagree with you. Historians spend a significant amount of time studying inconsequential details. Did you know that the pilgrims didn't really wear buckles on their hats? Completely inconsequential, but by studying that little detail you can learn that much of the mythology surrounding the Pilgrims and the story of Thanksgiving is absolutely false. I can't remember exactly why I had become interested in belt buckles on pilgrims hats, but it led me down the rabbit hole to learn that pretty much everything I learned about Pilgrims in grade school was wrong. And that the myth of the buckles on the hat were of the same origin of several falsehoods about the pilgrims which is widely taught in grade schools throughout American as historical fact. And because of my research about the buckles, I learned that the entire storyline that had been presented to me was fiction. 

yet they still came to america, settled and had feasts.  Most Americans would be shocked to find that Turkey and cranberry sauce was never a part of their feasts however.  Anyway, sidetrack.

Point and case, the event still took place regardless of the myth that has been put into it.  The purpose of the feast for us today still stands in memory of what they did so that we can have the freedom we have today regardless of what it originally was.  Therefore I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say the entire storyline that had been presented was fiction... then again, I don't know what your school taught you.   It may have been.  I would also claim that there was more fiction put into those stories and the likes of Paul Bunyon and John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) than the scripture stories that strictly deal with common errors of the time.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Considering the topic of drowning people in the Noah flood, yes, we cannot back that up in history, however there are many aspects of scripture that has been supported in history, so much so that it's getting harder and harder to suggest other parts that have no support couldn't be accurate.   It's almost impossible to find sufficient evidence of a comment made by someone so long ago.  But what follows through is what you see.  IOW, if God is real, has he since destroyed humanity???

Really? Name one supernatural aspect of the bible that is supported by history. Just one.  

So you decided to take what I said above and turn it around to make it look like I was claiming I can prove a supernatural event vs. the claim that there are many aspects in general supported?  Ok sure.  Why not.  

Is archaeology a part of history?  sure why not right?  ok, so the parting of the Red Sea.  Archaeology has shown a land ridge in the general location that is understood to be the place where Moses and His people crossed.  From here there are a few theories as to exactly what happened.  Historical weather patterns show that there's a particular wind that causes the water to move like tides, but a bit more rapidly and with certain gusts could have laid bare the land ridge that is typically under water.  Another theory is based around Archaeological evidence of a volcano that errupted within the vacinity close enough to cause a tsunami type effect in the water which would first draw the water back, then after a period of time rush the water back in... this one sounds a lot like the story.    IF you google underwater land bridge in the red sea, you'll find a lot of results that there is in fact this land bridge.  The historical theories of exactly what happened in the story are searchable too.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So I'm only on the first page of the Bible and already I shouldn't believe it any more than I believe Seabiscuit because of "poetic license". What if God saying all the people were evil was just poetic license?

was that part still Hebrew poetry?   Then again, poetic licence can change the order of events, or specific wording, but still typically sticks to the core.  If we want to go that far, then we can say it's poetic licence to say that God utterly destroyed humanity and therefore only some survived... all rules are out the window right?  That's not exactly how poetic licence works.  You're comparing an order question to a magnitude question.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you claim that when God is reported as saying something that I should believe that God did in fact say it. So insofar as quotes from God, you ARE claiming it is an accurate historical record. 

absolutely, but you're trying to take it to the next level and say that if it is a historical record, every aspect of it has to be 100% accurate and fully detailed and it was not written to be that way.  iT was written to portray a series of events in a particular blood line.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Is there even a question that most people are ignorant? As individuals, humans remain extremely ignorant. However, as a group we are far less ignorant than we were back then. We have the tools to learn information much more easily. Unfortunately, people often don't use them. For example, your assertion above that plants could have existed before the sun is amazingly ignorant. This could easily be confirmed by googling and reading up on the latest research about the nature of the sun and the origin of plant life on Earth where you will find thousands of well researched scientific journals on these subjects. If you are skeptical, you will have access to most of the raw data, the experiments conducted, the results and criticism from other scientists all from the comfort of your home. Instead, you prefer to remain ignorant and that preference puts you with the majority.

Was the sun there though?  You make absolute claims out of ignorance.  for example, if it is poetic licence, then the light at the beginning before anything was created was the sun and the poetic licence mentioned the creation of it after the fact.  Or despite the creation of the sun, if God is real, that would make this story more likely and nothing in Google can answer for me what the light was at the beginning of the story before the sun was created, so there's no reason to believe that the light in the story was anything that could not produce photosynthesis in plants.  considering how far back it could have taken place and the many billions of stars that are in our galaxy, it wouldn't be out of the question to assume another star was close enough by to start the process of life before the sun took over.  (I have nothing to back that up, it's just a random guess)  If you find something though, let me know.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
  

unfortunately for that case you post above, the more puzzle pieces I find, the clearer scripture is for me.  i don't stick to any "original guess" as you say.  My original guess would have left me a non-believer.

Bullshit. I pointed out the problems with the flood occurring 200,000 years ago then provided archaeological evidence and you changed the story to 2 million years ago. You are assuming that the flood happened and have gone at great lengths to rationalize it. I pointed out that it wasn't in any of the puzzle pieces we have, so you looked for an era where we have fewer puzzle pieces and claimed it happened there.

Bullshit?  really?  Are you spying on me?  YOu know that the puzzle pieces I've found have not made scripture clearer to me?  I dont' know who you've been spying on, but it's not me.  What I said is true.

Now for your other claim.  You are the one who claimed it would have happened so long ago based on evidences you presented.  After reviewing what you researched, I agreed it was a possibility.  Again, you are the one that concluded the 2 million years, not me.  If you are now doubting your own research I must ask why.

YOu also claim I went to great lengths to rationalize it.  I've only gone in lengths to question what you think is true.  From there you've concluded that I've been working hard to rationalize something.  If so, it's been a pretty easy trip.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You should be cautions accepting everything you have been taught in history. You will find that much of what is taught in grade school and high school is false. A good historian never relies on a single source before determining something is historical fact. They draw on numerous sources and seek archaeological evidence to support them.

I'm glad you see that.

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Where does history show that Noah's flood happened?

archaeology shows that such severe floods are possible

Beyond Saving wrote:

What rules?

mythical rules.  e.g. mythical gods typically don't care about people and more typically don't interfere in the favor of people for starters.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

for me, it's consistent with what I know of God.  For example.. I knew when growing up in a catholic church that this is not who God is.  I also knew when my dad became a JW that this is not who God is.  Everything I was taught and everything I knew taught me about a different God than I know now.  scripture taught me of the God I know now and I knew that God before I had read a single word.  It wasn't my upbringing that taught me that, so what was it?

Of course it is consistent with what you know of God. Everything you know of God comes from the bible and your interpretation of it. If you had grown up in an isolated culture that didn't have contact with any Christians you would not know anything of god.

funny considering that when I started reading the scriptures, I learned of a God that was not taught by my church.  

Considering what you said about not having contact with Christians... this is not true.  Perspectives teaches about untapped cultures who when found had god beliefs... one that I learned about in Africa had parallels to the Christian God.  They claimed to know this god, but of course dont' know of the westernization of the religion or even of Jesus Christ, just of that God.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Mythology is often based on a true story

Mythology often uses real people

mythology often uses real places

mythology often uses real events

...

When then is an assumed mythological story considered fact?  

When there is evidence that it is fact. 

like....

Beyond Saving wrote:

If the judge ordered the child killed I would blame the judge. 

so the child dies and the parent lives?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

When he decided to kill them. When our society kills a parent we generally accept that it is our responsibility to provide care for the child. We don't put someone on death row and throw their kid on the street to fend for themselves. (or as God did, strap the kid into the electric chair next to daddy)

the problem in this story is there was no society left for the child to go to... everyone was to be killed. 

you can also look at it as God did take responsibility and care for the child.  You again are looking at death as the end, but for God to kill the children in this scenario would be to take them into His presence and take care of them.  If God is real and this story is real, then you have to admit this is a realistic perspective.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would god ingrain a morality that makes me find him repulsive?

the morality doesn't make you find Him respulsive, your perspective does.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Kids often don't find such acts terrible, indeed kids tend to be quite gleeful about the prospect of killing. We are socialized into our morality. 

my 3 year old was horrified when he happened to catch a glimpse of someone getting hurt on tv.  I don't mean a 3 stooges eye poke, i mean someone getting in physical trouble... don't worry, wasn't letting him watch mature material, it was literally something the rest of us wouldn't think twice about, but to him it was a horror.  the gleeful aspect comes with more experience watching movies and life experience where it is seen as comical when someone gets hurt in slapstick movies.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Since children generally don't have a sexual drive they aren't likely to rape anyone. But yeah, kids are born with a pretty blank moral slate. They are socialized into morality and then develop their own based on their experiences, preferences and values. How does that ruin my case against God's morality? My claim is that morality is subjective and has changed dramatically over time and I argue that those changes are for the better. In biblical times, rape in war was not only acceptable, it was expected as a reward. In biblical times, slavery was common and viewed as right. In our times, we call these things immoral. I think that change makes for a more pleasant society to live in, don't you?

You claim that morality is objective from God and hasn't changed since biblical times.

I do and according to scripture, God was never ok with any of that.  The times don't reflect Gods morals.   The Laws do.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet another story where God killed innocents. 

actually, he allowed another entity to kill innocents, regardless their death in context of the story is vague.  Job had more children born to him... were some of them the same children?  if so they never actually were killed by your standards... if not, then their death was for a greater cause... unless you believe it's immoral for one to put their own life on the line to save others.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If our government were to bomb Syria and kill civilians I would find the action immoral even though they are effectively acting as judge and executioner. (Why they even warned them!) I apparently don't give judges the same leeway to murder innocents that you do. You clearly have a very perverse morality.

 

I don't give judges leeway to murder... but amidst the conversation you also have offered the son of pharaoh up for death vs. all the rest of the children and leaving the pharaoh alive.  Thus I could say your morality is perverse, but I'm willing to bet you had a better intention behind it.... (just for clarification to others reading along, this was reference to a quote in another thread)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
hope you see why one part that might not work doesn't negate the whole.
If you had understood, you wouldn't have said that.
caposkia wrote:
let's completely hijack the thread with nonsense then, sounds like a plan.
Your specialty.
caposkia wrote:
no, no you haven't.
Yes, I have. Nothing you say will change the facts, and continuing on your childish and delusional course merely shows your foolishness repeatedly. So please do continue. Every now and then I'll mention which page I refuted the equation on so newcomers can find it easily and join me in laughing at your delusions. I'll start now. For anyone who cares to see how I easily and absolutely ripped his equation apart; Page 13, post #628 is the beginning of a short series of refutations. The equation itself can be found (and laughed at) on the same page, post #626. I didn't bother refuting every part of the equation, because it wasn't necessary; as anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge can attest to.

... oh, and be sure to check out the link to the equation written by a scientist and referenced with over 200 sources.  Vastet claims to have completely refuted such a thoroughly researched equation in one sentence.  Thoughts?


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

No it simply isn't. Your wording is so imprecise that it's difficult to tell what you even mean, but let me try to understand. You are saying that by not considering the bible (or any scripture) to even be possibly authentic, I am engaging in special pleading? Because if that's what you say, then you are wrong about what special pleading is. Special pleading has to do specifically with making an exception. What exception am I making? 

 

It also has to do with ignoring the counter evidence, which is the part I feel you fall under.  See Wiki on this (search special pleading)

But you haven't provided any. Not one bit! You imply in your bible thread that to disprove anything that the bible says, we must be able to say for certain what actually happened in the time and place. You are the one guilty of ignoring counter-evidence here. Your interpretation of the bible is also very conveniently vague. When evidence shows that the bible is incoherent, or a part of the bible is seemingly wrong, you always pull the misinterpretation card. By this, you make it impossible to argue anything, and it's not because you're right.

If the bible is always right, and any point where it seems to not be is a deficiency in our understanding, that is textbook special pleading with a side order of moving the goalposts. Such a position is not possible to argue against, because it is completely vacuous. This is why I've grown bored of this discussion. I'll still participate though, because it's fun to see what you'll come up with next. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:But you

Jabberwocky wrote:

But you haven't provided any. Not one bit! You imply in your bible thread that to disprove anything that the bible says, we must be able to say for certain what actually happened in the time and place. You are the one guilty of ignoring counter-evidence here. Your interpretation of the bible is also very conveniently vague. When evidence shows that the bible is incoherent, or a part of the bible is seemingly wrong, you always pull the misinterpretation card. By this, you make it impossible to argue anything, and it's not because you're right.

If I had pulled the misinterpretation card, I also followed up with a sound explanation that can be cross referenced online if you google it.  If you're finding it impossible to argue anything considering that, maybe it's your interpretation that's actually wrong.  I know you say it's not because I'm right, but despite what you might think no one has proven me wrong yet.  

I have been open to all counter evidence.  Some difficulty with the alleged counter evidence is that it's assumptions based on personal interpretation of scriptures that ultimately have very little if any support in history or archaeology so it's virtually impossible for either side to have a solid stance.  Other issues are when confronted with the logical interpretation, you assume it's just a card pulled and not actual research.  That's a problem and it's not mine.

Jabberwocky wrote:

If the bible is always right, and any point where it seems to not be is a deficiency in our understanding, that is textbook special pleading with a side order of moving the goalposts. Such a position is not possible to argue against, because it is completely vacuous. This is why I've grown bored of this discussion. I'll still participate though, because it's fun to see what you'll come up with next. 

 

it's only special pleading if I'm not providing evidential reasoning behind why I think you misinterpreted it.  If I failed to provide logical reasoning somewhere, please let me know.  I have intended to follow up all claims of misinterpretation with the logic through language or other means that again can be googled for cross reference if you so desire.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, Look who it is ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                             Well, Look who it is .. that was kind enough to grace us with his presence !


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Point and

caposkia wrote:

Point and case, the event still took place regardless of the myth that has been put into it.  The purpose of the feast for us today still stands in memory of what they did so that we can have the freedom we have today regardless of what it originally was.  Therefore I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say the entire storyline that had been presented was fiction... then again, I don't know what your school taught you.   It may have been.  I would also claim that there was more fiction put into those stories and the likes of Paul Bunyon and John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) than the scripture stories that strictly deal with common errors of the time.

On what basis? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Really? Name one supernatural aspect of the bible that is supported by history. Just one.  

caposkia wrote:

So you decided to take what I said above and turn it around to make it look like I was claiming I can prove a supernatural event vs. the claim that there are many aspects in general supported?  Ok sure.  Why not.  

I have never questioned any of the non-supernatural aspects of the bible. I have said multiple times that I'm sure many events in the bible have some relation to real places, people and events. I reject the god and magic.

 

caposkia wrote:

Is archaeology a part of history?  sure why not right?  ok, so the parting of the Red Sea.  Archaeology has shown a land ridge in the general location that is understood to be the place where Moses and His people crossed.  From here there are a few theories as to exactly what happened.  Historical weather patterns show that there's a particular wind that causes the water to move like tides, but a bit more rapidly and with certain gusts could have laid bare the land ridge that is typically under water.  Another theory is based around Archaeological evidence of a volcano that errupted within the vacinity close enough to cause a tsunami type effect in the water which would first draw the water back, then after a period of time rush the water back in... this one sounds a lot like the story.    IF you google underwater land bridge in the red sea, you'll find a lot of results that there is in fact this land bridge.  The historical theories of exactly what happened in the story are searchable too.

Then it isn't supernatural is it? No God needed. It is also easy to see that if something happened like that to those people that they would believe it was supernatural and they would believe God did it. Just like people who win the lottery always praise God. Humans in history often attributed things they didn't understand to gods. If this hypothesis is correct it is simply evidence that the Christian God was simply the being given credit for completely natural events that people lacked the ability to explain.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So I'm only on the first page of the Bible and already I shouldn't believe it any more than I believe Seabiscuit because of "poetic license". What if God saying all the people were evil was just poetic license?

was that part still Hebrew poetry?   Then again, poetic licence can change the order of events, or specific wording, but still typically sticks to the core.  If we want to go that far, then we can say it's poetic licence to say that God utterly destroyed humanity and therefore only some survived... all rules are out the window right?  That's not exactly how poetic licence works.  You're comparing an order question to a magnitude question.  

I'm sure the authors were quite concerned about what you would find to be acceptable poetic license. 

 

caposkia wrote:

absolutely, but you're trying to take it to the next level and say that if it is a historical record, every aspect of it has to be 100% accurate and fully detailed and it was not written to be that way.  iT was written to portray a series of events in a particular blood line.

So how can you be sure the quotes from God are anything approaching 100% accuracy?

 

caposkia wrote:

Was the sun there though?  You make absolute claims out of ignorance.  for example, if it is poetic licence, then the light at the beginning before anything was created was the sun and the poetic licence mentioned the creation of it after the fact.  Or despite the creation of the sun, if God is real, that would make this story more likely and nothing in Google can answer for me what the light was at the beginning of the story before the sun was created, so there's no reason to believe that the light in the story was anything that could not produce photosynthesis in plants.  considering how far back it could have taken place and the many billions of stars that are in our galaxy, it wouldn't be out of the question to assume another star was close enough by to start the process of life before the sun took over.  (I have nothing to back that up, it's just a random guess)  If you find something though, let me know.

All you have are random unsubstantiated guesses. We have mountains of scientific evidence that the sun existed long before plants, and that is not a random guess. It is out of the question that another star was close enough when plant life first existed unless absolutely everything we have observed about astronomy is wrong. My point is that the story is not consistent with what we know and therefore should not be accepted as an unquestionable record of events. Whether it is wrong because of poetic license or the authors were ignorant is irrelevant, we should approach every sentence with skepticism until we can determine whether the claim is accurate. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Bullshit?  really?  Are you spying on me?  YOu know that the puzzle pieces I've found have not made scripture clearer to me?  I dont' know who you've been spying on, but it's not me.  What I said is true.

Now for your other claim.  You are the one who claimed it would have happened so long ago based on evidences you presented.  After reviewing what you researched, I agreed it was a possibility.  Again, you are the one that concluded the 2 million years, not me.  If you are now doubting your own research I must ask why.

No, you switched to the 2 million mark because I was pointing out the variety of problems with your hypothesis that it occurred 200,000 years ago and you were confronted with so much evidence even you had to concede it couldn't have happened 200,000 years ago and then postulate that it happened 2 million + years ago, at which point I started pointing out the larger problems if it happened that far back leading to the discussion of farming, wine, alcohol etc.  

See post 219 in the other thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32780?page=4 

caposkia wrote:

After looking into your links and cross referencing with other links... it seems a few of the oldest axes have been found in Malaysia upwards of 2 million years ago.  They've also found the remains of a human body they've dated back to 1.5 million years ago... not in malaysia.  Considering that evidence... and also that the article I linked is dated in 2010 and all those other articles are dated later that I've found... it seems that information has modified in the past few years.  

Considering the evidence you've brought to my attention and that we're really taking an educated guess as to when the flood actually happened based on evidences like these, yes I would have to say that the flood happened much earlier than I originally assumed here.  It's interesting though because you state that as if it's a bad thing for me to learn from new information and change my understanding based on that... why?  Most people would be thrilled to have proven me wrong... you just did.  I understand the sources I was using were a bit out of date.

I am not the one who claimed the flood happened 2 million years ago. I don't believe it happened ever. I was pointing out how completely wrong you were claiming that humans were all in one geographical location 200,000 years ago, at which point you adjusted your timeline. Which is my whole point.

You didn't respond to new information by going "hmm, what conclusions can we draw from this about what happened" you said, "oh, well the flood must have happened, so if humans were spread out 2 million years ago, the flood must have happened even earlier". You are assuming that the flood happened despite admitting yourself that there is absolutely no evidence of the flood occurring. You are starting with the assumption that you know what happened rather than looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions from it. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Where does history show that Noah's flood happened?

archaeology shows that such severe floods are possible

Where? Show me one shred of evidence that a worldwide flood is possible. 

 

caposkia wrote:

mythical rules.  e.g. mythical gods typically don't care about people and more typically don't interfere in the favor of people for starters.

There are many mythical gods that cared about people and interfered at various levels. Regardless, there are no "rules" for gods inherent in mythology. A myth is any traditional story which may be completely made up or based upon true events and told to pass on a particular religion, ideology or morality. Gods are often characters in myths, but are not necessary. Johnny Appleseed is a good example of mythology that does not contain a god.

 

caposkia wrote:

Considering what you said about not having contact with Christians... this is not true.  Perspectives teaches about untapped cultures who when found had god beliefs... one that I learned about in Africa had parallels to the Christian God.  They claimed to know this god, but of course dont' know of the westernization of the religion or even of Jesus Christ, just of that God.

Show me evidence, who are these tribes? We have already had this discussion and since you didn't focus on it we moved on, but if you have some evidence to add feel free. And while I'm at it, I did a little more research after the discussion- I meant to point it out earlier but the discussion had moved on. So 5 months later I will admit I was inaccurate and Dana was right. Better late than never right Sticking out tongue

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=10

See posts: 528, 529, 535

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Mythology is often based on a true story

Mythology often uses real people

mythology often uses real places

mythology often uses real events

...

When then is an assumed mythological story considered fact?  

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

When there is evidence that it is fact. 

like....

http://archive.archaeology.org/0405/etc/troy.html

Troy is a good example. There were many skeptics about whether or not there was a Trojan War as portrayed in the Iliad. Through evidence we have discovered that the city of Troy was in fact once a rather major city and that it had been decimated in what appears to be a war. There is a growing amount of evidence that the Trojan War might actually have happened and that the Troy we are digging up is actually the Troy that Homer used for setting in the Iliad. So many parts of that myth may be fact. Meanwhile, no evidence of any of the Greek Gods being involved has been found so I think we can safely assume those are pure myth.

Did the Greeks actually build a Trojan horse? Who knows, we will probably never be able to prove it one way or the other unless we can find the horse and recognize it as the horse. Now that would be an exciting find. Most archaeologists chalk up the horse as an invention of Homer who wrote several hundred years after the war was supposed to take place. So right now, the Trojan Horse is myth. If we ever find it, it will be fact. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would god ingrain a morality that makes me find him repulsive?

the morality doesn't make you find Him respulsive, your perspective does.

I find any morality which justifies or rationalizes drowning children or killing children to punish adults repulsive. No exceptions.
 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Since children generally don't have a sexual drive they aren't likely to rape anyone. But yeah, kids are born with a pretty blank moral slate. They are socialized into morality and then develop their own based on their experiences, preferences and values. How does that ruin my case against God's morality? My claim is that morality is subjective and has changed dramatically over time and I argue that those changes are for the better. In biblical times, rape in war was not only acceptable, it was expected as a reward. In biblical times, slavery was common and viewed as right. In our times, we call these things immoral. I think that change makes for a more pleasant society to live in, don't you?

You claim that morality is objective from God and hasn't changed since biblical times.

I do and according to scripture, God was never ok with any of that.  The times don't reflect Gods morals.   The Laws do.

God wasn't okay with it? Then why did the Lord give people permission to rape and pillage? Why did he outright support slavery? Why did God favor people who did such things? It seems to me that while he was making his 10 Commandments he could have included a few things against slavery and rape. 

 

caposkia wrote:

actually, he allowed another entity to kill innocents, regardless their death in context of the story is vague.  Job had more children born to him... were some of them the same children?  if so they never actually were killed by your standards... if not, then their death was for a greater cause... unless you believe it's immoral for one to put their own life on the line to save others.

Yeah, who cares if kids die, they are replaceable and it is even quite a bit of fun to make them. 

No, I don't believe it is immoral to risk your own life. I do believe it is immoral to risk someone else's life. Their death isn't vague, they were killed intentionally over a challenge with Satan that God made, much the way Michael Vick made wagers over dog fights.

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't give judges leeway to murder... but amidst the conversation you also have offered the son of pharaoh up for death vs. all the rest of the children and leaving the pharaoh alive.  Thus I could say your morality is perverse, but I'm willing to bet you had a better intention behind it.... (just for clarification to others reading along, this was reference to a quote in another thread)

No I didn't. I said,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Maybe the Pharaoh did give a shit about his own son. Killing his son might be an effective (albeit still immoral) way to make the point. But why include all the extra collateral damage of people who did nothing wrong except happen to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time?

How do you draw from that me supporting the idea of killing the Pharaoh's son? I don't even support killing the Pharaoh if you are omnipotent. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Re :: .. deo dignus vindice nodus (latin)

Re :: .. deo dignus vindice nodus (latin)
_______________________
{Anonymouse wrote}

Anonymouse wrote:

Which is why you've been defending your insane faith here for, what ? , 5 years or so ?

You replied, "..you still think I'm here defending my faith huh? I've explained it 100 times in these 5 years. I'm here with an open mind to have a discussion about truth, whatever that might be."


To :: Cap (the good one!!):
Makes good sense to be able to use your long standing Thread as a novel model for threads in the future. It is one others have wished to copy (I've witnessed with my own eyes), and was highly intelligent tact for you to (purposefully) 'limit' the conversation. Being topic driven by this indispensable model and approach to broader textual discussions or any future discussions (really). I dont know if you've ever heard that from anyone on the board (before/yet). So I am saying. Although, I may be extending such 'praise', because of having 'suffered' some cheap shots about my age, in some very patronizing behavior and comments, in the clear form of going out of your way to ridicule. I didnt look at my adversary in the eye (so to speak) and replied, “Do you really think that little of me?” Most patronizing people tend to back off quickly when their little game is exposed without rancor. I doubt it applies to actual , factual troll(s), so I not so subtlety went with a different tact w/ him. I am being sincere when I say all of this. I am so very thankful for you, Cap (the good one). You most certainly are not a troll and should be commended for that most highly. The Book of Romans tells us, "to give honor, unto whom honor is due". In your case it is much deserved for the way you carry yourself. Nice to make comparisons between people.

¬ Your (Hoping) 'Friend',


  ¬ D a n a

 

   p.s. -- At warnings this will cost me, an excitable type;  anyhow,   I specifically   asked of you to comment on the Nephilim.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:... oh, and

caposkia wrote:
... oh, and be sure to check out the link to the equation written by a scientist and referenced with over 200 sources.  Vastet claims to have completely refuted such a thoroughly researched equation in one sentence.  Thoughts?

You really should pay more attention. I gave directions to your equation at the same time I gave directions to my refuting of it.
Also, while it is possibly true that I refuted it with a single sentence, I actually devoted multiple paragraphs to refuting it; and also showed how the 200 references did not support the conclusion in the equation. In fact, many of the references had nothing to do with the equation. And I also pointed out how you hadn't looked into any of them, and referenced at least one of them myself in refuting the equation.

Ah irony.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
... oh, and be sure to check out the link to the equation written by a scientist and referenced with over 200 sources.  Vastet claims to have completely refuted such a thoroughly researched equation in one sentence.  Thoughts?
You really should pay more attention. I gave directions to your equation at the same time I gave directions to my refuting of it. Also, while it is possibly true that I refuted it with a single sentence, I actually devoted multiple paragraphs to refuting it; and also showed how the 200 references did not support the conclusion in the equation. In fact, many of the references had nothing to do with the equation. And I also pointed out how you hadn't looked into any of them, and referenced at least one of them myself in refuting the equation. Ah irony.

 

Vastet wrote:
It is USING PRE-EXISTING LIFE to calculate the PROBABILITY OF LIFE FORMING.

I think that sentence is the one that refuted it outright. Of course, you had several sentences pointing out examples of the equation using pre-existing life. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
haha I just almost spit out

haha I just almost spit out my coffee. I'd forgotten that sentence. Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

But you haven't provided any. Not one bit! You imply in your bible thread that to disprove anything that the bible says, we must be able to say for certain what actually happened in the time and place. You are the one guilty of ignoring counter-evidence here. Your interpretation of the bible is also very conveniently vague. When evidence shows that the bible is incoherent, or a part of the bible is seemingly wrong, you always pull the misinterpretation card. By this, you make it impossible to argue anything, and it's not because you're right.

If I had pulled the misinterpretation card, I also followed up with a sound explanation that can be cross referenced online if you google it.  If you're finding it impossible to argue anything considering that, maybe it's your interpretation that's actually wrong. I know you say it's not because I'm right, but despite what you might think no one has proven me wrong yet.  

I have been open to all counter evidence.  Some difficulty with the alleged counter evidence is that it's assumptions based on personal interpretation of scriptures that ultimately have very little if any support in history or archaeology so it's virtually impossible for either side to have a solid stance.  Other issues are when confronted with the logical interpretation, you assume it's just a card pulled and not actual research.  That's a problem and it's not mine.

This entire part of your post says "I explained myself" (in the first half paragraph) which you didn't actually do, followed by...accusing me of misinterpreting the scriptures. You have just made my point for me. 

Also, note the bold part. The bible itself has very little, if any, support in history or archaeology. Every possible interpretation of the bible (other than ones that ignore words and sentences in VERY large chunks) is incompatible with what we know of history and archaeology. The flood thread, and your thread with PJTS show that your interpretation is no different. You are having your arguments refuted, then asserting that you have explained yourself. This is getting very repetitive. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

If the bible is always right, and any point where it seems to not be is a deficiency in our understanding, that is textbook special pleading with a side order of moving the goalposts. Such a position is not possible to argue against, because it is completely vacuous. This is why I've grown bored of this discussion. I'll still participate though, because it's fun to see what you'll come up with next. 

 

it's only special pleading if I'm not providing evidential reasoning behind why I think you misinterpreted it.  If I failed to provide logical reasoning somewhere, please let me know.  I have intended to follow up all claims of misinterpretation with the logic through language or other means that again can be googled for cross reference if you so desire.

No, that's not how this works. It is special pleading, because you assume the bible to be all true, but not other scriptures. Furthermore, you refuse to even consider the possibility that the bible is not all true. If you don't understand why you are engaging in special pleading, despite your assertion that you are not (and wackier still, that others, including myself, are), then I don't think you ever will, and we are done here. I'm not saying I won't respond to you (you might come up with something completely wacky I won't be able to resist replying to), but I don't think there is any point to further discussion between us in this thread. I welcome our discussion to continue in the flood thread though, because we are touching on far more specific points there. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Been trying to reply, but the response page isn't loading right

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Point and case, the event still took place regardless of the myth that has been put into it.  The purpose of the feast for us today still stands in memory of what they did so that we can have the freedom we have today regardless of what it originally was.  Therefore I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say the entire storyline that had been presented was fiction... then again, I don't know what your school taught you.   It may have been.  I would also claim that there was more fiction put into those stories and the likes of Paul Bunyon and John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) than the scripture stories that strictly deal with common errors of the time.

On what basis? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Really? Name one supernatural aspect of the bible that is supported by history. Just one.  

caposkia wrote:

So you decided to take what I said above and turn it around to make it look like I was claiming I can prove a supernatural event vs. the claim that there are many aspects in general supported?  Ok sure.  Why not.  

I have never questioned any of the non-supernatural aspects of the bible. I have said multiple times that I'm sure many events in the bible have some relation to real places, people and events. I reject the god and magic.

 

caposkia wrote:

Is archaeology a part of history?  sure why not right?  ok, so the parting of the Red Sea.  Archaeology has shown a land ridge in the general location that is understood to be the place where Moses and His people crossed.  From here there are a few theories as to exactly what happened.  Historical weather patterns show that there's a particular wind that causes the water to move like tides, but a bit more rapidly and with certain gusts could have laid bare the land ridge that is typically under water.  Another theory is based around Archaeological evidence of a volcano that errupted within the vacinity close enough to cause a tsunami type effect in the water which would first draw the water back, then after a period of time rush the water back in... this one sounds a lot like the story.    IF you google underwater land bridge in the red sea, you'll find a lot of results that there is in fact this land bridge.  The historical theories of exactly what happened in the story are searchable too.

Then it isn't supernatural is it? No God needed. It is also easy to see that if something happened like that to those people that they would believe it was supernatural and they would believe God did it. Just like people who win the lottery always praise God. Humans in history often attributed things they didn't understand to gods. If this hypothesis is correct it is simply evidence that the Christian God was simply the being given credit for completely natural events that people lacked the ability to explain.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So I'm only on the first page of the Bible and already I shouldn't believe it any more than I believe Seabiscuit because of "poetic license". What if God saying all the people were evil was just poetic license?

was that part still Hebrew poetry?   Then again, poetic licence can change the order of events, or specific wording, but still typically sticks to the core.  If we want to go that far, then we can say it's poetic licence to say that God utterly destroyed humanity and therefore only some survived... all rules are out the window right?  That's not exactly how poetic licence works.  You're comparing an order question to a magnitude question.  

I'm sure the authors were quite concerned about what you would find to be acceptable poetic license. 

 

caposkia wrote:

absolutely, but you're trying to take it to the next level and say that if it is a historical record, every aspect of it has to be 100% accurate and fully detailed and it was not written to be that way.  iT was written to portray a series of events in a particular blood line.

So how can you be sure the quotes from God are anything approaching 100% accuracy?

 

caposkia wrote:

Was the sun there though?  You make absolute claims out of ignorance.  for example, if it is poetic licence, then the light at the beginning before anything was created was the sun and the poetic licence mentioned the creation of it after the fact.  Or despite the creation of the sun, if God is real, that would make this story more likely and nothing in Google can answer for me what the light was at the beginning of the story before the sun was created, so there's no reason to believe that the light in the story was anything that could not produce photosynthesis in plants.  considering how far back it could have taken place and the many billions of stars that are in our galaxy, it wouldn't be out of the question to assume another star was close enough by to start the process of life before the sun took over.  (I have nothing to back that up, it's just a random guess)  If you find something though, let me know.

All you have are random unsubstantiated guesses. We have mountains of scientific evidence that the sun existed long before plants, and that is not a random guess. It is out of the question that another star was close enough when plant life first existed unless absolutely everything we have observed about astronomy is wrong. My point is that the story is not consistent with what we know and therefore should not be accepted as an unquestionable record of events. Whether it is wrong because of poetic license or the authors were ignorant is irrelevant, we should approach every sentence with skepticism until we can determine whether the claim is accurate. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Bullshit?  really?  Are you spying on me?  YOu know that the puzzle pieces I've found have not made scripture clearer to me?  I dont' know who you've been spying on, but it's not me.  What I said is true.

Now for your other claim.  You are the one who claimed it would have happened so long ago based on evidences you presented.  After reviewing what you researched, I agreed it was a possibility.  Again, you are the one that concluded the 2 million years, not me.  If you are now doubting your own research I must ask why.

No, you switched to the 2 million mark because I was pointing out the variety of problems with your hypothesis that it occurred 200,000 years ago and you were confronted with so much evidence even you had to concede it couldn't have happened 200,000 years ago and then postulate that it happened 2 million + years ago, at which point I started pointing out the larger problems if it happened that far back leading to the discussion of farming, wine, alcohol etc.  

See post 219 in the other thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32780?page=4 

caposkia wrote:

After looking into your links and cross referencing with other links... it seems a few of the oldest axes have been found in Malaysia upwards of 2 million years ago.  They've also found the remains of a human body they've dated back to 1.5 million years ago... not in malaysia.  Considering that evidence... and also that the article I linked is dated in 2010 and all those other articles are dated later that I've found... it seems that information has modified in the past few years.  

Considering the evidence you've brought to my attention and that we're really taking an educated guess as to when the flood actually happened based on evidences like these, yes I would have to say that the flood happened much earlier than I originally assumed here.  It's interesting though because you state that as if it's a bad thing for me to learn from new information and change my understanding based on that... why?  Most people would be thrilled to have proven me wrong... you just did.  I understand the sources I was using were a bit out of date.

I am not the one who claimed the flood happened 2 million years ago. I don't believe it happened ever. I was pointing out how completely wrong you were claiming that humans were all in one geographical location 200,000 years ago, at which point you adjusted your timeline. Which is my whole point.

You didn't respond to new information by going "hmm, what conclusions can we draw from this about what happened" you said, "oh, well the flood must have happened, so if humans were spread out 2 million years ago, the flood must have happened even earlier". You are assuming that the flood happened despite admitting yourself that there is absolutely no evidence of the flood occurring. You are starting with the assumption that you know what happened rather than looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions from it. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Where does history show that Noah's flood happened?

archaeology shows that such severe floods are possible

Where? Show me one shred of evidence that a worldwide flood is possible. 

 

caposkia wrote:

mythical rules.  e.g. mythical gods typically don't care about people and more typically don't interfere in the favor of people for starters.

There are many mythical gods that cared about people and interfered at various levels. Regardless, there are no "rules" for gods inherent in mythology. A myth is any traditional story which may be completely made up or based upon true events and told to pass on a particular religion, ideology or morality. Gods are often characters in myths, but are not necessary. Johnny Appleseed is a good example of mythology that does not contain a god.

 

caposkia wrote:

Considering what you said about not having contact with Christians... this is not true.  Perspectives teaches about untapped cultures who when found had god beliefs... one that I learned about in Africa had parallels to the Christian God.  They claimed to know this god, but of course dont' know of the westernization of the religion or even of Jesus Christ, just of that God.

Show me evidence, who are these tribes? We have already had this discussion and since you didn't focus on it we moved on, but if you have some evidence to add feel free. And while I'm at it, I did a little more research after the discussion- I meant to point it out earlier but the discussion had moved on. So 5 months later I will admit I was inaccurate and Dana was right. Better late than never right Sticking out tongue

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=10

See posts: 528, 529, 535

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Mythology is often based on a true story

Mythology often uses real people

mythology often uses real places

mythology often uses real events

...

When then is an assumed mythological story considered fact?  

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

When there is evidence that it is fact. 

like....

http://archive.archaeology.org/0405/etc/troy.html

Troy is a good example. There were many skeptics about whether or not there was a Trojan War as portrayed in the Iliad. Through evidence we have discovered that the city of Troy was in fact once a rather major city and that it had been decimated in what appears to be a war. There is a growing amount of evidence that the Trojan War might actually have happened and that the Troy we are digging up is actually the Troy that Homer used for setting in the Iliad. So many parts of that myth may be fact. Meanwhile, no evidence of any of the Greek Gods being involved has been found so I think we can safely assume those are pure myth.

Did the Greeks actually build a Trojan horse? Who knows, we will probably never be able to prove it one way or the other unless we can find the horse and recognize it as the horse. Now that would be an exciting find. Most archaeologists chalk up the horse as an invention of Homer who wrote several hundred years after the war was supposed to take place. So right now, the Trojan Horse is myth. If we ever find it, it will be fact. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would god ingrain a morality that makes me find him repulsive?

the morality doesn't make you find Him respulsive, your perspective does.

I find any morality which justifies or rationalizes drowning children or killing children to punish adults repulsive. No exceptions.
 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Since children generally don't have a sexual drive they aren't likely to rape anyone. But yeah, kids are born with a pretty blank moral slate. They are socialized into morality and then develop their own based on their experiences, preferences and values. How does that ruin my case against God's morality? My claim is that morality is subjective and has changed dramatically over time and I argue that those changes are for the better. In biblical times, rape in war was not only acceptable, it was expected as a reward. In biblical times, slavery was common and viewed as right. In our times, we call these things immoral. I think that change makes for a more pleasant society to live in, don't you?

You claim that morality is objective from God and hasn't changed since biblical times.

I do and according to scripture, God was never ok with any of that.  The times don't reflect Gods morals.   The Laws do.

God wasn't okay with it? Then why did the Lord give people permission to rape and pillage? Why did he outright support slavery? Why did God favor people who did such things? It seems to me that while he was making his 10 Commandments he could have included a few things against slavery and rape. 

 

caposkia wrote:

actually, he allowed another entity to kill innocents, regardless their death in context of the story is vague.  Job had more children born to him... were some of them the same children?  if so they never actually were killed by your standards... if not, then their death was for a greater cause... unless you believe it's immoral for one to put their own life on the line to save others.

Yeah, who cares if kids die, they are replaceable and it is even quite a bit of fun to make them. 

No, I don't believe it is immoral to risk your own life. I do believe it is immoral to risk someone else's life. Their death isn't vague, they were killed intentionally over a challenge with Satan that God made, much the way Michael Vick made wagers over dog fights.

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't give judges leeway to murder... but amidst the conversation you also have offered the son of pharaoh up for death vs. all the rest of the children and leaving the pharaoh alive.  Thus I could say your morality is perverse, but I'm willing to bet you had a better intention behind it.... (just for clarification to others reading along, this was reference to a quote in another thread)

No I didn't. I said,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Maybe the Pharaoh did give a shit about his own son. Killing his son might be an effective (albeit still immoral) way to make the point. But why include all the extra collateral damage of people who did nothing wrong except happen to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time?

How do you draw from that me supporting the idea of killing the Pharaoh's son? I don't even support killing the Pharaoh if you are omnipotent. 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
That is one spicy meat-o-ball --- Dare I say Reboot

 

  On page number nine. Nu 434 or 467 --- danatemporary comment intriguing eschatological reference . . . (that one )

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9#comment-403519

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9   Posted on: April 19th at  #434  (or 467)  www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
reboot didn't work. still blank white comment box

danatemporary wrote:

 

  On page number nine. Nu 434 or 467 --- danatemporary comment intriguing eschatological reference . . . (that one )

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9#comment-403519

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9   Posted on: April 19th at  #434  (or 467)  www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
↑ (No Subject Phew)

  ( No Subject )

  See :: Pic  ---

 

 

 

P.S. -- I dont care what flies on Christian-boards,  this isn't one. It doesnt fly here!! I am sure this all happened for a reason. And your (Caposkia) particular purposeful inattentiveness and frankly your contemptible behaviour scarily highlights why people do not stay on christian boards.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:danatemporary

caposkia wrote:
danatemporary wrote:

 

  On page number nine. Nu 434 or 467 --- danatemporary comment intriguing eschatological reference . . . (that one )

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9#comment-403519

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9   Posted on: April 19th at  #434  (or 467)  www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9

I've been having the same problem using Chrome the last couple of days. Firefox is working fine though.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:
danatemporary wrote:

 

  On page number nine. Nu 434 or 467 --- danatemporary comment intriguing eschatological reference . . . (that one )

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9#comment-403519

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9   Posted on: April 19th at  #434  (or 467)  www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=9

I've been having the same problem using Chrome the last couple of days. Firefox is working fine though.

yea, firefox does work.  Thanks.  Both Chrome and Explorer had the same issue.  I'll work on responding now.   Sorry for the delay

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: P.S.

danatemporary wrote:

 

P.S. -- I dont care what flies on Christian-boards,  this isn't one. It doesnt fly here!! I am sure this all happened for a reason. And your (Caposkia) particular purposeful inattentiveness and frankly your contemptible behaviour scarily highlights why people do not stay on christian boards.

huh?  What's this in reference to?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Point and case, the event still took place regardless of the myth that has been put into it.  The purpose of the feast for us today still stands in memory of what they did so that we can have the freedom we have today regardless of what it originally was.  Therefore I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say the entire storyline that had been presented was fiction... then again, I don't know what your school taught you.   It may have been.  I would also claim that there was more fiction put into those stories and the likes of Paul Bunyon and John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) than the scripture stories that strictly deal with common errors of the time.

On what basis? 

history... the point isn't whether there's more fiction or not, the point is we can look at stories like Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyon and see complete fiction... yet history shows these people actually existed.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have never questioned any of the non-supernatural aspects of the bible. I have said multiple times that I'm sure many events in the bible have some relation to real places, people and events. I reject the god and magic.

You've been making it sound like you've been rejecting the scriptures as a whole and not just partial to God and what you call magic.  I think we need to take a whole different approach to this conversation then.  It should probably start with the possibility of a metaphysical existence and how likely you are able to accept that with what we know.  If we can't get beyond that, we definitely can't discuss the God of the Bible. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then it isn't supernatural is it? No God needed. It is also easy to see that if something happened like that to those people that they would believe it was supernatural and they would believe God did it. Just like people who win the lottery always praise God. Humans in history often attributed things they didn't understand to gods. If this hypothesis is correct it is simply evidence that the Christian God was simply the being given credit for completely natural events that people lacked the ability to explain.

yea sure, an event happens that is completely explainable.. happens right when a group of people are being chased down by their captors and ironically moves the water out of the way just in the nick of time only to rush the water back.. again in the nick of time allowing the chased to escape unharmed but drowns the chasers so that the group is safe... but no God needed.    Why do you think God would necessarily break the rules of the environment He created to make an event happen? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm sure the authors were quite concerned about what you would find to be acceptable poetic license. 

I'm sure the authors were concerned about getting a point across in a way that would keep the attention of even the skeptic. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So how can you be sure the quotes from God are anything approaching 100% accuracy?

after taking into consideration historical accuracy and congruency from parchment to parchment, story to story... if that wasn't sufficient to logically deduce based on empirical evidence... faith plays a role in the accuracy of scriptures.  Knowing God as I do, I have faith that what is claimed to have been said by Him is true.  I also believe, just as you would due to the claims that God can do anything, that He would not allow these scriptures to represent Him if it failed to accurately represent what He said. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Was the sun there though?  You make absolute claims out of ignorance.  for example, if it is poetic licence, then the light at the beginning before anything was created was the sun and the poetic licence mentioned the creation of it after the fact.  Or despite the creation of the sun, if God is real, that would make this story more likely and nothing in Google can answer for me what the light was at the beginning of the story before the sun was created, so there's no reason to believe that the light in the story was anything that could not produce photosynthesis in plants.  considering how far back it could have taken place and the many billions of stars that are in our galaxy, it wouldn't be out of the question to assume another star was close enough by to start the process of life before the sun took over.  (I have nothing to back that up, it's just a random guess)  If you find something though, let me know.

All you have are random unsubstantiated guesses. We have mountains of scientific evidence that the sun existed long before plants, and that is not a random guess. It is out of the question that another star was close enough when plant life first existed unless absolutely everything we have observed about astronomy is wrong. My point is that the story is not consistent with what we know and therefore should not be accepted as an unquestionable record of events. Whether it is wrong because of poetic license or the authors were ignorant is irrelevant, we should approach every sentence with skepticism until we can determine whether the claim is accurate. 

if that's all I had, I would not be a believer... if that's all I presented, I would be done talking. 

Again, you've been ignoring what that light was at the beginning of the story if it wasn't the sun.  How are you so sure that light wasn't there, or if it was, that it didn't provide photosynthetic properties for plants?

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, you switched to the 2 million mark because I was pointing out the variety of problems with your hypothesis that it occurred 200,000 years ago and you were confronted with so much evidence even you had to concede it couldn't have happened 200,000 years ago and then postulate that it happened 2 million + years ago, at which point I started pointing out the larger problems if it happened that far back leading to the discussion of farming, wine, alcohol etc.  

See post 219 in the other thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32780?page=4 

I remember what happened... the case you provided was very logical... but a case that someone else more recently presented was even more logical.  Again, it's a shot in the dark.  We have no empirical dating evidence to point to exactly when these things happened.  We can theorize based on what we know, but when it comes down to it, any dating we come up with is not going to cause me to doubt this story.  I don't base my belief off this story.  Compiled support for the rest of scripture leads me to logically deduce the validity of this story. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

After looking into your links and cross referencing with other links... it seems a few of the oldest axes have been found in Malaysia upwards of 2 million years ago.  They've also found the remains of a human body they've dated back to 1.5 million years ago... not in malaysia.  Considering that evidence... and also that the article I linked is dated in 2010 and all those other articles are dated later that I've found... it seems that information has modified in the past few years.  

Considering the evidence you've brought to my attention and that we're really taking an educated guess as to when the flood actually happened based on evidences like these, yes I would have to say that the flood happened much earlier than I originally assumed here.  It's interesting though because you state that as if it's a bad thing for me to learn from new information and change my understanding based on that... why?  Most people would be thrilled to have proven me wrong... you just did.  I understand the sources I was using were a bit out of date.

I am not the one who claimed the flood happened 2 million years ago. I don't believe it happened ever. I was pointing out how completely wrong you were claiming that humans were all in one geographical location 200,000 years ago, at which point you adjusted your timeline. Which is my whole point.

You didn't respond to new information by going "hmm, what conclusions can we draw from this about what happened" you said, "oh, well the flood must have happened, so if humans were spread out 2 million years ago, the flood must have happened even earlier". You are assuming that the flood happened despite admitting yourself that there is absolutely no evidence of the flood occurring. You are starting with the assumption that you know what happened rather than looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions from it. 

I see your issue.  Of course i believe the flood happened.  A misrepresented dating is not going to make me question it.  We again have nothing to go on, so any guess is literally just that and nothing to base belief or disbelief on.  It is logical that I'd change my dating understanding when presented with logical evidence... why wouldn't I?  Better question, why would i suddenly reject the story just because you brought up an issue with the dating I had concluded on?  To me the issue was the assumed timeline, not the story... we again have evidence as presented by the YEC that such floods are possible as shown in geology. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Where? Show me one shred of evidence that a worldwide flood is possible. 

I gave you a link as to which instead of discussing the evidence you got sidetracked on his YEC views.  Yes he claimed that what He had found was THEE flood, but what I'm presenting is the possibility of it happening. 

We've also discussed the true likely magnitude of that flood and what it could have been, yet you forget that too... we're just going in circles now.  I think it's clear.  I get that you don't want to accept it and that's fine, but let's keep progression for the sake of the readers.

Beyond Saving wrote:

There are many mythical gods that cared about people and interfered at various levels. Regardless, there are no "rules" for gods inherent in mythology. A myth is any traditional story which may be completely made up or based upon true events and told to pass on a particular religion, ideology or morality. Gods are often characters in myths, but are not necessary. Johnny Appleseed is a good example of mythology that does not contain a god.

ok.  A study of gods give a general understanding.. not worth a tangent on.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Show me evidence, who are these tribes? We have already had this discussion and since you didn't focus on it we moved on, but if you have some evidence to add feel free. And while I'm at it, I did a little more research after the discussion- I meant to point it out earlier but the discussion had moved on. So 5 months later I will admit I was inaccurate and Dana was right. Better late than never right Sticking out tongue

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33613?page=10

See posts: 528, 529, 535

Well a researchable source might be difficult be it that I got this information from the perspectives course based out of Trinity.... from the horses mouth. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

http://archive.archaeology.org/0405/etc/troy.html

Troy is a good example. There were many skeptics about whether or not there was a Trojan War as portrayed in the Iliad. Through evidence we have discovered that the city of Troy was in fact once a rather major city and that it had been decimated in what appears to be a war. There is a growing amount of evidence that the Trojan War might actually have happened and that the Troy we are digging up is actually the Troy that Homer used for setting in the Iliad. So many parts of that myth may be fact. Meanwhile, no evidence of any of the Greek Gods being involved has been found so I think we can safely assume those are pure myth.

So archaeology... great... I'll ask again then:

Mythology is often based on a true story

Mythology often uses real people

mythology often uses real places

mythology often uses real events

...

When then is an assumed mythological story considered fact? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Did the Greeks actually build a Trojan horse? Who knows, we will probably never be able to prove it one way or the other unless we can find the horse and recognize it as the horse. Now that would be an exciting find. Most archaeologists chalk up the horse as an invention of Homer who wrote several hundred years after the war was supposed to take place. So right now, the Trojan Horse is myth. If we ever find it, it will be fact.

here's the problem I have with that wording... Fact is fact whether you believe it's myth or not.  We don't determine what is myth and what is fact... we may assume a fact is a myth until we see evidence that satisfies us, but a fact is always a fact.  Either it is or it isn't.

Beyond Saving wrote:

[/quote=caposkia]

the morality doesn't make you find Him respulsive, your perspective does.

I find any morality which justifies or rationalizes drowning children or killing children to punish adults repulsive. No exceptions.

again perspective... you're choosing special pleading by bringing in a factor that we have no information on.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

God wasn't okay with it? Then why did the Lord give people permission to rape and pillage? Why did he outright support slavery? Why did God favor people who did such things? It seems to me that while he was making his 10 Commandments he could have included a few things against slavery and rape. 

He gave permission to rape?  i need that quote please.  I don't remember this.  also, me thinks you're putting slavery as it was in the United States into scripture.  The slavery God supported was not the slavery that pharaoh made people do.  The slaves of the Bible if you read it actually got paid.  How immoral!

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, who cares if kids die, they are replaceable and it is even quite a bit of fun to make them. 

No, I don't believe it is immoral to risk your own life. I do believe it is immoral to risk someone else's life. Their death isn't vague, they were killed intentionally over a challenge with Satan that God made, much the way Michael Vick made wagers over dog fights.

except that if this is true they only died in the flesh... then did Job have all new children in the end of the story?  and what was the point of that story?

Beyond Saving wrote:

How do you draw from that me supporting the idea of killing the Pharaoh's son? I don't even support killing the Pharaoh if you are omnipotent. 

There was another quote somewhere where you said something about sparing the children of everyone else and just killing the pharaoh and his son, but i know your stance on not punishing the guilty, so I'll drop it and assume I misunderstood you. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:Re :: ..

danatemporary wrote:

Re :: .. deo dignus vindice nodus (latin)
_______________________
{Anonymouse wrote}

Anonymouse wrote:

Which is why you've been defending your insane faith here for, what ? , 5 years or so ?

You replied, "..you still think I'm here defending my faith huh? I've explained it 100 times in these 5 years. I'm here with an open mind to have a discussion about truth, whatever that might be."


To :: Cap (the good one!!):
Makes good sense to be able to use your long standing Thread as a novel model for threads in the future. It is one others have wished to copy (I've witnessed with my own eyes), and was highly intelligent tact for you to (purposefully) 'limit' the conversation. Being topic driven by this indispensable model and approach to broader textual discussions or any future discussions (really). I dont know if you've ever heard that from anyone on the board (before/yet). So I am saying. Although, I may be extending such 'praise', because of having 'suffered' some cheap shots about my age, in some very patronizing behavior and comments, in the clear form of going out of your way to ridicule. I didnt look at my adversary in the eye (so to speak) and replied, “Do you really think that little of me?” Most patronizing people tend to back off quickly when their little game is exposed without rancor. I doubt it applies to actual , factual troll(s), so I not so subtlety went with a different tact w/ him. I am being sincere when I say all of this. I am so very thankful for you, Cap (the good one). You most certainly are not a troll and should be commended for that most highly. The Book of Romans tells us, "to give honor, unto whom honor is due". In your case it is much deserved for the way you carry yourself. Nice to make comparisons between people.

¬ Your (Hoping) 'Friend',


  ¬ D a n a

 

   p.s. -- At warnings this will cost me, an excitable type;  anyhow,   I specifically   asked of you to comment on the Nephilim.

I don't know what the comment was from you below, but now that I can respond appropriately, I wanted to thank you for the kind words.  They do mean a lot so thanks Smiling


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
... oh, and be sure to check out the link to the equation written by a scientist and referenced with over 200 sources.  Vastet claims to have completely refuted such a thoroughly researched equation in one sentence.  Thoughts?
You really should pay more attention. I gave directions to your equation at the same time I gave directions to my refuting of it. Also, while it is possibly true that I refuted it with a single sentence, I actually devoted multiple paragraphs to refuting it; and also showed how the 200 references did not support the conclusion in the equation. In fact, many of the references had nothing to do with the equation. And I also pointed out how you hadn't looked into any of them, and referenced at least one of them myself in refuting the equation. Ah irony.

got it, you're smarter than the scientist...


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
... oh, and be sure to check out the link to the equation written by a scientist and referenced with over 200 sources.  Vastet claims to have completely refuted such a thoroughly researched equation in one sentence.  Thoughts?
You really should pay more attention. I gave directions to your equation at the same time I gave directions to my refuting of it. Also, while it is possibly true that I refuted it with a single sentence, I actually devoted multiple paragraphs to refuting it; and also showed how the 200 references did not support the conclusion in the equation. In fact, many of the references had nothing to do with the equation. And I also pointed out how you hadn't looked into any of them, and referenced at least one of them myself in refuting the equation. Ah irony.

 

Vastet wrote:
It is USING PRE-EXISTING LIFE to calculate the PROBABILITY OF LIFE FORMING.

I think that sentence is the one that refuted it outright. Of course, you had several sentences pointing out examples of the equation using pre-existing life. 

The problem with that conclusion is you can't factor the probability of life if life isn't a factor.    If life has never happened, the probability of it happening is 0 because the concept doesn't exist. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:This

Jabberwocky wrote:

This entire part of your post says "I explained myself" (in the first half paragraph) which you didn't actually do, followed by...accusing me of misinterpreting the scriptures. You have just made my point for me. 

Also, note the bold part. The bible itself has very little, if any, support in history or archaeology. Every possible interpretation of the bible (other than ones that ignore words and sentences in VERY large chunks) is incompatible with what we know of history and archaeology. The flood thread, and your thread with PJTS show that your interpretation is no different. You are having your arguments refuted, then asserting that you have explained yourself. This is getting very repetitive. 

it was actually a challenge to you to show me why I'm wrong.  I was reiterating how I have yet to see reason to question what I think i know.  You kind of made my point for me here.

Jabberwocky wrote:

If the bible is always right, and any point where it seems to not be is a deficiency in our understanding, that is textbook special pleading with a side order of moving the goalposts. Such a position is not possible to argue against, because it is completely vacuous. This is why I've grown bored of this discussion. I'll still participate though, because it's fun to see what you'll come up with next. 

it's only special pleading if I'm not providing evidential reasoning behind why I think you misinterpreted it.  If I failed to provide logical reasoning somewhere, please let me know.  I have intended to follow up all claims of misinterpretation with the logic through language or other means that again can be googled for cross reference if you so desire.

Jabberwocky wrote:

No, that's not how this works.

wait... We don't present researchable evidence to back up claims of misunderstanding and misrepresentation?????????

Jabberwocky wrote:

It is special pleading, because you assume the bible to be all true, but not other scriptures. Furthermore, you refuse to even consider the possibility that the bible is not all true. If you don't understand why you are engaging in special pleading, despite your assertion that you are not (and wackier still, that others, including myself, are), then I don't think you ever will, and we are done here. I'm not saying I won't respond to you (you might come up with something completely wacky I won't be able to resist replying to), but I don't think there is any point to further discussion between us in this thread. I welcome our discussion to continue in the flood thread though, because we are touching on far more specific points there. 

Now you're misrepresenting me.  I assume the Bible to be a true and accurate representation of God.  I believe other scriptures have truth in them, but do not teach of my God.  Furthermore, I have considered the possibility for years that the Bible is not all true and through lots of research and growth have concluded that it is all true. 

I honestly don't understand your approach here be it that it's pretty much all based on assumption and you seem to claim I can't just back myself up with evidence, but if that's how you want it, I do believe we are done here.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
DP (Double Post)

 

DP  (Double Post)


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:history...

caposkia wrote:

history... the point isn't whether there's more fiction or not, the point is we can look at stories like Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyon and see complete fiction... yet history shows these people actually existed.

And if you were reading the Bible for the first time with absolutely no knowledge of it you would no doubt consider it to be complete fiction. Just because history shows that some of the characters, places and even events might have been real doesn't mean all the fictitious parts are as well. 

 

caposkia wrote:

You've been making it sound like you've been rejecting the scriptures as a whole and not just partial to God and what you call magic.  I think we need to take a whole different approach to this conversation then.  It should probably start with the possibility of a metaphysical existence and how likely you are able to accept that with what we know.  If we can't get beyond that, we definitely can't discuss the God of the Bible. 

As soon as you can present some evidence of a metaphysical existence I will consider it. So far, I have seen no evidence at all. If you remember, that is kind of how this thread started with us trying to find evidence of demons before you eventually had to admit there is no evidence.

 

caposkia wrote:

yea sure, an event happens that is completely explainable.. happens right when a group of people are being chased down by their captors and ironically moves the water out of the way just in the nick of time only to rush the water back.. again in the nick of time allowing the chased to escape unharmed but drowns the chasers so that the group is safe... but no God needed.    Why do you think God would necessarily break the rules of the environment He created to make an event happen? 

Well he supposedly broke the rules several times when it was convenient to do so. If he didn't and everything happened naturally and the stories are exaggerated, then why believe that there is a god? How do you determine if something is coincidence? How do you determine if a plague was caused by God or if it simply happened?

 

caposkia wrote:

after taking into consideration historical accuracy and congruency from parchment to parchment, story to story... if that wasn't sufficient to logically deduce based on empirical evidence... faith plays a role in the accuracy of scriptures.  Knowing God as I do, I have faith that what is claimed to have been said by Him is true.  I also believe, just as you would due to the claims that God can do anything, that He would not allow these scriptures to represent Him if it failed to accurately represent what He said. 

But we have just established that it is not accurate. And obviously, if there is a God, he has allowed many scriptures that claim to represent him to continue to exist. The Bible is not the only book that claims to represent God.

 

caposkia wrote:

Again, you've been ignoring what that light was at the beginning of the story if it wasn't the sun.  How are you so sure that light wasn't there, or if it was, that it didn't provide photosynthetic properties for plants?

Why should I have to explain what the light was? I don't believe the story. We know that the sun existed long before plants, like 4 billion years before plants. Denying that is the equivalent of claiming that the world is flat.

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, you switched to the 2 million mark because I was pointing out the variety of problems with your hypothesis that it occurred 200,000 years ago and you were confronted with so much evidence even you had to concede it couldn't have happened 200,000 years ago and then postulate that it happened 2 million + years ago, at which point I started pointing out the larger problems if it happened that far back leading to the discussion of farming, wine, alcohol etc.  

See post 219 in the other thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32780?page=4 

caposkia wrote:

I remember what happened... the case you provided was very logical... but a case that someone else more recently presented was even more logical.  Again, it's a shot in the dark.  We have no empirical dating evidence to point to exactly when these things happened.  We can theorize based on what we know, but when it comes down to it, any dating we come up with is not going to cause me to doubt this story.  I don't base my belief off this story.  Compiled support for the rest of scripture leads me to logically deduce the validity of this story.

So even when you are presented with indisputable evidence, you won't even doubt the story?  

 

caposkia wrote:

I see your issue.  Of course i believe the flood happened.  A misrepresented dating is not going to make me question it.  We again have nothing to go on, so any guess is literally just that and nothing to base belief or disbelief on.  It is logical that I'd change my dating understanding when presented with logical evidence... why wouldn't I?  Better question, why would i suddenly reject the story just because you brought up an issue with the dating I had concluded on? 

You admit that you have nothing to go on, absolutely no evidence, yet you believe... why? Why would you reject the story? Because there is absolutely zero evidence that it happened, it is impossible under our current understanding of the science of floods and there are numerous problems making the story coherent with reality. It isn't that the flood couldn't have happened at some specific time, the problem is that the flood couldn't have happened at all as it is relayed in the story.

 

caposkia wrote:

To me the issue was the assumed timeline, not the story... we again have evidence as presented by the YEC that such floods are possible as shown in geology. 

Obviously you don't grasp his argument. His argument is based on the world being 10,000 years old. If the world is 4.5 billion years old, then the evidence he claims to have of the flood is not evidence of a flood. He didn't find anything new, he is simply using a drastically different interpretation of the geological evidence. Unless you accept the YEC explanation, then it is not evidence of any flood happening anywhere at anytime. Either the rock formations were formed over billions of years as most geologists argue, or it was created in 40 days by a massive flood. It can't be both. At least one is absolutely wrong. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Well a researchable source might be difficult be it that I got this information from the perspectives course based out of Trinity.... from the horses mouth. 

And you aren't the least bit suspicious that this course didn't base their teaching on researchable material? Did all the anthropologists decide to ignore these mysterious tribes?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

God wasn't okay with it? Then why did the Lord give people permission to rape and pillage? Why did he outright support slavery? Why did God favor people who did such things? It seems to me that while he was making his 10 Commandments he could have included a few things against slavery and rape. 

caposkia wrote:

He gave permission to rape?  i need that quote please. 

Numbers 31: Moses was furious with them letting the women live. Ordered them killed except for the "young girls who are virgins" which they could "keep" for themselves.

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't remember this.  also, me thinks you're putting slavery as it was in the United States into scripture.  The slavery God supported was not the slavery that pharaoh made people do.  The slaves of the Bible if you read it actually got paid.  How immoral!

Well they got paid... I guess that makes it completely moral then... I happen to abhor the practice of slavery in all forms, including indentured servitude, but then again I am an evil sinner.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:got it,

caposkia wrote:
got it, you're smarter than the scientist...

Correction: I'm smarter than the guy you referenced, who is most definitely not a credible scientist, but a theist. Much like yourself. He's so pathetic that he references his own papers, despite the fact that noone else does. But you'd only know that if you'd bothered to critically examine his equation, and we've both demonstrated that you never did.

"Hugh Ross has been criticized by CSUF professor emeritus Mark Perakh for crude errors and misunderstanding of basic concepts of thermodynamics together with misinterpretations of Hebrew words."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)

My less-than-a-year-old nephew has a better grasp on science than the retard you worship.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:And if

Beyond Saving wrote:

And if you were reading the Bible for the first time with absolutely no knowledge of it you would no doubt consider it to be complete fiction. Just because history shows that some of the characters, places and even events might have been real doesn't mean all the fictitious parts are as well. 

likewise with any story really.  Give me a newspaper article in book form that I have no understanding or knowledge of and I also would automatically assume fiction.  Why? because I have absolute knowledge of it and have no premise to assume anything about it. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

As soon as you can present some evidence of a metaphysical existence I will consider it. So far, I have seen no evidence at all. If you remember, that is kind of how this thread started with us trying to find evidence of demons before you eventually had to admit there is no evidence.

There is no evidence that you would accept as evidence.  If you remember you want to sit down and interview a demon... maybe a stretch, but it's the jist of what you were looking for.  It was not rational for the subject matter to suggest.  Evidence of a metaphysical existence typically is categorized (for you) as those things that have yet to be explained... in other words, instead of considering metaphysics as one of many possibilities, you assume science hasn't recognized the physical properties of the occurence, event or affect...e.g. dark matter.  (I'm not suggesting necessarliy that dark matter is actually metaphysics, but I'm not ruling it out either mainly because we still don't know exactly what it is) 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well he supposedly broke the rules several times when it was convenient to do so. If he didn't and everything happened naturally and the stories are exaggerated, then why believe that there is a god? How do you determine if something is coincidence? How do you determine if a plague was caused by God or if it simply happened?

I never said He didn't ever break the rules put in place in nature, but why does it have to be an either or scenario? 

To answer your questions, it stops becoming coincidence when thousands of people in any given time period has similar experiences, has conversations with said being, the same rules are followed for each event, etc.  In other words, one time is a coincidence.  Many times is not...

...but what of the parting of the red sea or the noah flood?  Those are both one time events.

they are, but with so many factors to make happen as needed that it's too ironic to be ironic... e.g. the innocent group in the Moses story is completely safe, whereas the chasing group gets obliterated by an event that in all logical thought could never have such impecable time on its own.   Logic states that given that situation, the strong swimmers may have survived and the rest would have either been killed or driven back to slavery.  No parting of the Red Sea would logically have happened... or if it did, not in that particular moment for the specific time needed for one group of people to cross and the next to drown. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 But we have just established that it is not accurate. And obviously, if there is a God, he has allowed many scriptures that claim to represent him to continue to exist. The Bible is not the only book that claims to represent God.

I think we're looking at this the wrong way... We never established that the historical aspect was not accurate, only that the names change according to what existed during the time of the writers life and not necessarly the name of the location during the storyline's time.  Dates were as accurate as an amateur human being could make based on a story that was told to them/read to them by others.  the original writers of the story likely didn't date it knowing dating was not a necessary factor in the story during that time.    Numbers were magnified to portray a story that would grab the interest of otherwise uninterested people... Consider a newspaper headline, though not outright manipulating numbers, they do make you think one thing then when you read the article you find out another...

e.g. one actual headline reads "Caffeine cures Alzheimers"  Turns out the article talks about one study that found a reversal of Alzheimer symptoms in mice.   So is it false?  no, caffeine did cure alzheimers... for one lucky mouse population in this particular study.    Further studies show that caffeine does help lower the chances of getting it and can slow the progression down which adds to the support for the headline, but just as the numbers are misleading in scripture, the headline was misleading about the cure.  It didn't change the event and doesn't change the benefits of caffeine on Alzheimers, but the cure rate is much lower than originally assumed by reading the headline.    It still happens today

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why should I have to explain what the light was? I don't believe the story. We know that the sun existed long before plants, like 4 billion years before plants. Denying that is the equivalent of claiming that the world is flat.

Because you're the one claiming (and rightfully so) that the sun existed long before plants and yet are trying to tell me that scripture tells us that the sun was created after plants... If that's true, then you need to explain what that light was at the beginning of the story because according to you, it couldn't have been the sun.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So even when you are presented with indisputable evidence, you won't even doubt the story?  

wait... you have evidence of when it actually happened, or could have happend?  please share!  Mind you this indisputable evidence needs to be then associated to this story, or it's not indisputable... either that or the evidence the other person presented is false.   Either way this isn't looking good for your case.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You admit that you have nothing to go on, absolutely no evidence, yet you believe... why? Why would you reject the story? Because there is absolutely zero evidence that it happened, it is impossible under our current understanding of the science of floods and there are numerous problems making the story coherent with reality. It isn't that the flood couldn't have happened at some specific time, the problem is that the flood couldn't have happened at all as it is relayed in the story.

i accept it because where we do  have evidence in other stories of scripture it is pretty clear.  It'd be like claiming that the NY Times is a reliable source, but then doubting one story in it because you have no basis for it.   If I deem something credible, either it all is or it all isn't... there's no half way.   The Bible has to be viewed the same way.  Forget the historical support for people and places mentioned existing, either the stories happened or they didn't.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Obviously you don't grasp his argument. His argument is based on the world being 10,000 years old. If the world is 4.5 billion years old, then the evidence he claims to have of the flood is not evidence of a flood. He didn't find anything new, he is simply using a drastically different interpretation of the geological evidence. Unless you accept the YEC explanation, then it is not evidence of any flood happening anywhere at anytime. Either the rock formations were formed over billions of years as most geologists argue, or it was created in 40 days by a massive flood. It can't be both. At least one is absolutely wrong. 

I was looking at the evidence, not his argument. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Well a researchable source might be difficult be it that I got this information from the perspectives course based out of Trinity.... from the horses mouth. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

And you aren't the least bit suspicious that this course didn't base their teaching on researchable material? Did all the anthropologists decide to ignore these mysterious tribes?

um... the tribe is researchable (don't remember the name), the occurance and discovery of the belief system is not researchable beyond that course be it that they were the only ones to reach that tribe and today's missionaries are more concerned with spreading the word than publishing a book on their findings...  Also to a Christian, this would not be ground breaking news and therefore not publish worthy, only documented likely in the organizations notes.    It is also well known that there are many tribes in Africa that are untouched by the outside world.  I would say it's not that anthropologists have decided to ignore these mysterious tribes, moreso that they chose to not risk their lives to find out more about them. 

Aren't you the least bit suspicious of your own conclusions?  That wasn't very well thought out. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

God wasn't okay with it? Then why did the Lord give people permission to rape and pillage? Why did he outright support slavery? Why did God favor people who did such things? It seems to me that while he was making his 10 Commandments he could have included a few things against slavery and rape. 

caposkia wrote:

He gave permission to rape?  i need that quote please. 

Numbers 31: Moses was furious with them letting the women live. Ordered them killed except for the "young girls who are virgins" which they could "keep" for themselves.

... ok.  That is when they were commanded to destroy the people group... where did it say God commanded them to rape them????

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well they got paid... I guess that makes it completely moral then... I happen to abhor the practice of slavery in all forms, including indentured servitude, but then again I am an evil sinner.

 

you need to start doing some research.  There's a lot more to it than being paid.  By all accounts of the definition by Biblical standards, everyone who lives paycheck to paycheck is a slave.  Maybe you're one of the lucky ones who isn't a slave to the machine!!!


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
got it, you're smarter than the scientist...
Correction: I'm smarter than the guy you referenced, who is most definitely not a credible scientist, but a theist. Much like yourself. He's so pathetic that he references his own papers, despite the fact that noone else does. But you'd only know that if you'd bothered to critically examine his equation, and we've both demonstrated that you never did. "Hugh Ross has been criticized by CSUF professor emeritus Mark Perakh for crude errors and misunderstanding of basic concepts of thermodynamics together with misinterpretations of Hebrew words." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist) My less-than-a-year-old nephew has a better grasp on science than the retard you worship.

If what you say is true, it does interest me on how He was able to successfully publish 250 books. 
Beyond that, What are your thoughts on Hugh Rosses response to the cricisms?  Please be specific when referencing, the article was quite long.    I did notice that Mark Perakh was not directly responded to but others who held Marks perspective were.    After looking into Mark, though he has interest in Biblical code (which he finds rediculous), the focus of his studies have nothing to do with the Bible, or any ancient scripts for that matter.  He would not be seen as a scholar or historian by any means and therefore was likely not seen as a credible criticism by Hugh.  

Just so we don't lose the question to which I would like a direct response;

What were your thoughts on the article where Hugh Ross responds to the criticisms from others?  

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Any idiot can publish books.

Any idiot can publish books. That doesn't lend him credibility.

Mark was the only critic I paid attention to. William Craig is a hack. Anything he says is likely to be wrong. I don't know J.P. Moreland or Thomas C. Oden, but the fact they were mentioned in the same sentence as Craig and are also christian apologists caused me to similarly discard them as irrelevant. So Hugh's response to those critics is also irrelevant. I judge him as being just as likely to be right or wrong as any other apologist.

I will mention that Mark never attacked Hugh's study of biblical texts, he attacked Hugh's understanding of the Hebrew language and physics (specifically thermodynamics). So your suggestion he wasn't qualified to criticise Hugh's work because he wasn't a historian is irrelevant, because that's not an area he criticised.
Also, according to the definition of scholar, Mark definitely qualifies as a scholar. Not of theology, but certainly of mathematics, physics, and statistical mechanics.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh, but was it 250 ??? Huh, huh ??

Vastet wrote:
Any idiot can publish books.

 

  Examples . . .

 I got about literally five minutes but I can cite these as examples . . .

  Ian Wilson authored about 33-32 ; Erich von Däniken approxiately less than 25 (?); Harry Price about a mere  dozen (though Price shouldnt be judged by his subject-matter). To be fair, Wilson has at least two of his works that are of some value from a historical perspective. But he has spent decades of his life defending a questionable relic from Rome. Anyone versing themselves in any of the authors; would become more familiar with some of the most common flaws that bedevil scholars. Nourishing the spoon fed. 0r they resort to straw-man or too easily refutable positions intend upon not ever  dealing with less exaggerated examples or key points. Often not addressing important information because of their own  ignorance of the subject. Facts were starkly be slough(ed) over, unfortunately, anything that may interfere with its' achievement  (*cough*). Yet, guess what ?  Published authors.

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:There is no

caposkia wrote:

There is no evidence that you would accept as evidence.  If you remember you want to sit down and interview a demon... maybe a stretch, but it's the jist of what you were looking for.  It was not rational for the subject matter to suggest.  Evidence of a metaphysical existence typically is categorized (for you) as those things that have yet to be explained... in other words, instead of considering metaphysics as one of many possibilities, you assume science hasn't recognized the physical properties of the occurence, event or affect...e.g. dark matter.  (I'm not suggesting necessarliy that dark matter is actually metaphysics, but I'm not ruling it out either mainly because we still don't know exactly what it is) 

And there is evidence that suggests the existence of dark matter. Not enough to prove it exists, but enough to argue convincingly that it might exist and I would even say likely exists. The same cannot be said of demons, god or metaphysics. All I asked for is evidence equivalent to what we have for dark matter. It was others who asked for the demon ring.

 

caposkia wrote:

I never said He didn't ever break the rules put in place in nature, but why does it have to be an either or scenario?

If he has broken the rules before then it makes my question of why he decided not to break the rules again legitimate, a question you have decried as special pleading.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

To answer your questions, it stops becoming coincidence when thousands of people in any given time period has similar experiences, has conversations with said being, the same rules are followed for each event, etc.  In other words, one time is a coincidence.  Many times is not...

...but what of the parting of the red sea or the noah flood?  Those are both one time events.

they are, but with so many factors to make happen as needed that it's too ironic to be ironic... e.g. the innocent group in the Moses story is completely safe, whereas the chasing group gets obliterated by an event that in all logical thought could never have such impecable time on its own.   Logic states that given that situation, the strong swimmers may have survived and the rest would have either been killed or driven back to slavery.  No parting of the Red Sea would logically have happened... or if it did, not in that particular moment for the specific time needed for one group of people to cross and the next to drown.

I doubt the story occurred at all, but if it did happen as above is it impossible? No. It is highly improbable, but by the time you factor in the errors because of the authors it is much less so. Perhaps all the chasers did not die. Those relaying the story had no way to know one way or the other. Clearly, they didn't go back and ask. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I think we're looking at this the wrong way... We never established that the historical aspect was not accurate, only that the names change according to what existed during the time of the writers life and not necessarly the name of the location during the storyline's time.  Dates were as accurate as an amateur human being could make based on a story that was told to them/read to them by others.  the original writers of the story likely didn't date it knowing dating was not a necessary factor in the story during that time.    Numbers were magnified to portray a story that would grab the interest of otherwise uninterested people... Consider a newspaper headline, though not outright manipulating numbers, they do make you think one thing then when you read the article you find out another...

e.g. one actual headline reads "Caffeine cures Alzheimers"  Turns out the article talks about one study that found a reversal of Alzheimer symptoms in mice.   So is it false?  no, caffeine did cure alzheimers... for one lucky mouse population in this particular study.    Further studies show that caffeine does help lower the chances of getting it and can slow the progression down which adds to the support for the headline, but just as the numbers are misleading in scripture, the headline was misleading about the cure.  It didn't change the event and doesn't change the benefits of caffeine on Alzheimers, but the cure rate is much lower than originally assumed by reading the headline.    It still happens today

Newspaper headlines are often blatantly false. Another reason you shouldn't accept reports on faith. Yet you insist that the bible be accepted even when the story is inconsistent with reality as we know it.

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why should I have to explain what the light was? I don't believe the story. We know that the sun existed long before plants, like 4 billion years before plants. Denying that is the equivalent of claiming that the world is flat.

Because you're the one claiming (and rightfully so) that the sun existed long before plants and yet are trying to tell me that scripture tells us that the sun was created after plants... If that's true, then you need to explain what that light was at the beginning of the story because according to you, it couldn't have been the sun.

Scripture specifically says plants were created before the sun. I am pointing out that is impossible. If you just want to admit it is completely wrong about the order things were created then we can look for more errors on page 2. Remember, you claimed scripture is accurate, which led to me pointing out the errors on page 1.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So even when you are presented with indisputable evidence, you won't even doubt the story?  

wait... you have evidence of when it actually happened, or could have happend?  please share!  Mind you this indisputable evidence needs to be then associated to this story, or it's not indisputable... either that or the evidence the other person presented is false.   Either way this isn't looking good for your case.

No I have evidence that it could not have happened. The specific evidence depends on when you want tpo claim it happened. I have already demonstrated it could not have happened at 10,000 bc 200,000 bc or 2 ma. What dates do you want to explore next?

caposkia wrote:

i accept it because where we do  have evidence in other stories of scripture it is pretty clear.  It'd be like claiming that the NY Times is a reliable source, but then doubting one story in it because you have no basis for it.   If I deem something credible, either it all is or it all isn't... there's no half way.   The Bible has to be viewed the same way.  Forget the historical support for people and places mentioned existing, either the stories happened or they didn't.  

Yet the NY Times has been inaccurate many times in the past. It is only sensible to question its accuracy when it makes claims that do not match other knowledge you have or are unlikely on their face. There is nothing written by humans that is 100% credible. Even with a careful editorial process inaccuracies occur from ignorance, mistakes and sometimes intention. That is why all newspapers have a section for corrections. Historians often deal with a number of credible sources that tell very different stories of the same event. Especially when eyewitnesses are involved.

caposkia wrote:

I was looking at the evidence, not his argument. 

 

What about his evidence suggests a flood is possible? Not a single geologist in the world interprets it that way, including him. Do you know something they don't?

caposkia wrote:

um... the tribe is researchable (don't remember the name), the occurance and discovery of the belief system is not researchable beyond that course be it that they were the only ones to reach that tribe and today's missionaries are more concerned with spreading the word than publishing a book on their findings...  Also to a Christian, this would not be ground breaking news and therefore not publish worthy, only documented likely in the organizations notes.    It is also well known that there are many tribes in Africa that are untouched by the outside world.  I would say it's not that anthropologists have decided to ignore these mysterious tribes, moreso that they chose to not risk their lives to find out more about them. 

Aren't you the least bit suspicious of your own conclusions?  That wasn't very well thought out. 

Not at all since you can't name any of the tribes. A few years ago I got interested in the topic and read about it extensively. I was more interested in South American tribes because that is where I traveled. But I did read about a minister in the late 1800's who argued that all tribes believed in god in some way. Since that time, he has been thoroughly discredited. It turns out the natives were simply repeating what he read to them from the bible. I have a folder full of bookmarks to anthropologist journals on the topic on my laptop. When I get home next week I will try to remember to link the relevant ones here.

If you have evidence to the contrary I would like to see it. I strongly doubt there are many cultures in Africa that have avoided anthropologists.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well they got paid... I guess that makes it completely moral then... I happen to abhor the practice of slavery in all forms, including indentured servitude, but then again I am an evil sinner.

 

you need to start doing some research.  There's a lot more to it than being paid.  By all accounts of the definition by Biblical standards, everyone who lives paycheck to paycheck is a slave.  Maybe you're one of the lucky ones who isn't a slave to the machine!!!

I am a bit familiar with the systems of slavery and the conditions even well off slaves lived in, it clearly was not pleasant and it was involuntary. You need to do some research, it is not at all comparable to modern wage labor, whatever your feelings are about the morality of a capitalist system. No sane human would prefer ancient slavery to working at McDonalds. (Except maybe being a sex slave for Cleopatra wouldn't be a terrible gig if you like that sort of thing. Alas, the rumors of her having kinky sex with slaves are all from Roman sources and probably false designed to make her look bad.)

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Due to sensativities & indecorous thoughts don't misinterpret

 

Jabberwocky wrote:
This entire part of your post says "I explained myself" (in the first half paragraph) which you didn't actually do, followed by...accusing me of misinterpreting the scriptures. You have just made my point for me. 

Also, note the bold part. The bible itself has very little, if any, support in history or archaeology. Every possible interpretation of the bible (other than ones that ignore words and sentences in VERY large chunks) is incompatible with what we know of history and archaeology. The flood thread, and your thread with PJTS show that your interpretation is no different. You are having your arguments refuted, then asserting that you have explained yourself. This is getting very repetitive.

 Cap's reply : ..it was actually a challenge to you to show me why I'm wrong.  I was reiterating how I have yet to see reason to question what I think i know.  You kind of made my point for me here.

  Nu 779a


 

  Why not take a moment to show us where your interpretation,  is the correct one ? Just a thought. It's the expected and not to mention the humble way.

 

Title ::The Blackie devil woman, gave rise to strange fire in her type of polluted playfulness
 


Re ::  The Blackie devil woman, gave rise to strange fire in her type of polluted playfulness, not a reference to Kalika, the goddess

 

   **Words have multiple meanings to different audiences. Words have multiple meanings in general. You haven't shown a willingness to delve into much of anything with this approach you've shown, Cap.

  Say you were a hindu; then I could  ask  about what I am missing about Shiva, purely to show you as an example:


  I humbly ask, what dont I understand about Shiva ? Not out of knowledge but closer to intuition, in it's raw and pure form. I thought it might boster my knowledge if I knew more about Vairavar or Bhairava is a fierce manifestation of Lord Shiva, is both called upon and worshiped by various nefarious underworld-types, and demonic entities. The Goddess Kalika (aka - Kali) called Shiva, "My Lord".
    
   **Mindfulness (sati or Sati-upaṭṭhāna), and clear comprehension (sampajanna). The word sati originally meant memory, but in the present context it signifies recollection of the present, a sustained awareness of what is happening to us and within us on each occasion of experience. Though I think the words meaning would be more from an indic origin myself.
   Shiva has been somewhat wrongly compared to Enkidu (of a Mesopotamian Epic), with the countenance as a wild-man, which strikes me as surfacey, that being is in stark contrast  to Shiva unbroken meditative state.   Much closer comparisons can be made in the same type of prescription, was prescribed for Shiva, as the Enkidu, (in the Epic). The goddess Parvati, was one of the wives of Shiva, also known as Dakshayani. Sometimes over the outcome of a game of dice it will result in a quarrel within the marital group, and not everything was always domestic bliss, according to various accounts.  Particularly when Shiva loses, and as payment Parvati demands his loincloth, at which she stands and laughs at him (the blue throated one). From time to time, with Shiva, Parvati playfully covers the eyes the of the god Shiva with her hands while standing behind. As a result the world was temporarily cast into darkness. In the story from the Siva Purana referred to, Shiva, after beheading Ganesha or Ganesa, Shiva sent the gods to cut off an elephant's head to replace the head of his offspring, one of the more beloved gods of India.  An interesting bit of information is found to be said in the origin of *Uccista-matangini (See: Link) for more about, his wife, Parvati, in terms of her behaviour.  Not to mention, .. so much for "The Pure One"(Shiva). These can build questions, I'd think.

 

Greater expansion into Parvati, is seen in one of the two origins stories of Uccista-matangini, in the link:


*http://www.mahavidya.ca/?page_id=1233

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

This entire part of your post says "I explained myself" (in the first half paragraph) which you didn't actually do, followed by...accusing me of misinterpreting the scriptures. You have just made my point for me. 

Also, note the bold part. The bible itself has very little, if any, support in history or archaeology. Every possible interpretation of the bible (other than ones that ignore words and sentences in VERY large chunks) is incompatible with what we know of history and archaeology. The flood thread, and your thread with PJTS show that your interpretation is no different. You are having your arguments refuted, then asserting that you have explained yourself. This is getting very repetitive. 

it was actually a challenge to you to show me why I'm wrong.  I was reiterating how I have yet to see reason to question what I think i know.  You kind of made my point for me here.

Yep, we're done in this thread. Your arguments are simply attempting to repeat what I have said, but directing it at me, even when it doesn't apply. Flood thread please, speciics in there.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

If the bible is always right, and any point where it seems to not be is a deficiency in our understanding, that is textbook special pleading with a side order of moving the goalposts. Such a position is not possible to argue against, because it is completely vacuous. This is why I've grown bored of this discussion. I'll still participate though, because it's fun to see what you'll come up with next. 

it's only special pleading if I'm not providing evidential reasoning behind why I think you misinterpreted it.  If I failed to provide logical reasoning somewhere, please let me know.  I have intended to follow up all claims of misinterpretation with the logic through language or other means that again can be googled for cross reference if you so desire.

Jabberwocky wrote:

No, that's not how this works.

wait... We don't present researchable evidence to back up claims of misunderstanding and misrepresentation?????????

You certainly don't.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

It is special pleading, because you assume the bible to be all true, but not other scriptures. Furthermore, you refuse to even consider the possibility that the bible is not all true. If you don't understand why you are engaging in special pleading, despite your assertion that you are not (and wackier still, that others, including myself, are), then I don't think you ever will, and we are done here. I'm not saying I won't respond to you (you might come up with something completely wacky I won't be able to resist replying to), but I don't think there is any point to further discussion between us in this thread. I welcome our discussion to continue in the flood thread though, because we are touching on far more specific points there. 

Now you're misrepresenting me.  I assume the Bible to be a true and accurate representation of God.  I believe other scriptures have truth in them, but do not teach of my God.  Furthermore, I have considered the possibility for years that the Bible is not all true and through lots of research and growth have concluded that it is all true. 

I honestly don't understand your approach here be it that it's pretty much all based on assumption and you seem to claim I can't just back myself up with evidence, but if that's how you want it, I do believe we are done here.

Yep, done in this thread. Over to the flood thread (even though you're trying to steer people away from it it seems)

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
.

 Nu  788

 

   Kali Upload (info) ..



 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Any idiot can

Vastet wrote:
Any idiot can publish books. That doesn't lend him credibility. Mark was the only critic I paid attention to. William Craig is a hack. Anything he says is likely to be wrong. I don't know J.P. Moreland or Thomas C. Oden, but the fact they were mentioned in the same sentence as Craig and are also christian apologists caused me to similarly discard them as irrelevant. So Hugh's response to those critics is also irrelevant. I judge him as being just as likely to be right or wrong as any other apologist. I will mention that Mark never attacked Hugh's study of biblical texts, he attacked Hugh's understanding of the Hebrew language and physics (specifically thermodynamics). So your suggestion he wasn't qualified to criticise Hugh's work because he wasn't a historian is irrelevant, because that's not an area he criticised. Also, according to the definition of scholar, Mark definitely qualifies as a scholar. Not of theology, but certainly of mathematics, physics, and statistical mechanics.

...which doesn't necessarily qualify him to be a scholar credible enough to discuss a theologic topic.   

Any idiot can publish books as you say, but publishers don't typically buy rights to texts from idiots... and if they do, they typically don't make the same mistake twice, let alone 250 times. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

There is no evidence that you would accept as evidence.  If you remember you want to sit down and interview a demon... maybe a stretch, but it's the jist of what you were looking for.  It was not rational for the subject matter to suggest.  Evidence of a metaphysical existence typically is categorized (for you) as those things that have yet to be explained... in other words, instead of considering metaphysics as one of many possibilities, you assume science hasn't recognized the physical properties of the occurence, event or affect...e.g. dark matter.  (I'm not suggesting necessarliy that dark matter is actually metaphysics, but I'm not ruling it out either mainly because we still don't know exactly what it is) 

And there is evidence that suggests the existence of dark matter. Not enough to prove it exists, but enough to argue convincingly that it might exist and I would even say likely exists. The same cannot be said of demons, god or metaphysics. All I asked for is evidence equivalent to what we have for dark matter. It was others who asked for the demon ring.

You put metaphysics in there huh?  I'm sorry, metaphysics exists.  It is a study taken seriously by most in the scientific world... Your evidence that dark matter exists is similar to Christians claiming demons or God exist... Either you accept that dark matter exists and is an actual "thing" out there, or you don't.  If you don't no big deal, as you said, not enough evidence to really prove it exists.  Same with God.  you can accept God or not, not enough evidence for "proof" as far as what you're looking for.  No big deal for me either way. 

The thing is, your belief in dark matter or God does not determine their existence.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I never said He didn't ever break the rules put in place in nature, but why does it have to be an either or scenario?

If he has broken the rules before then it makes my question of why he decided not to break the rules again legitimate, a question you have decried as special pleading.

Why would he?  Because He can?  That's where special pleading comes in.  It's the "God would do it this way if he was real.. He didn't so He's not"...

Beyond Saving wrote:

I doubt the story occurred at all, but if it did happen as above is it impossible? No. It is highly improbable, but by the time you factor in the errors because of the authors it is much less so. Perhaps all the chasers did not die. Those relaying the story had no way to know one way or the other. Clearly, they didn't go back and ask. 

ok, so all the chasers did not die... what happened to them and why were Moses' people able to stop running and settle?  If they just retreated and forever left them alone, then as far as anyone in the story's concerned, they died... no one ever saw them again.  Doesn't change what happened.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Newspaper headlines are often blatantly false. Another reason you shouldn't accept reports on faith. Yet you insist that the bible be accepted even when the story is inconsistent with reality as we know it.

based on research and experience.    Do you spend years reading and rereading the same newspaper article and cross referencing, researching history, talking to people with experience and experiencing some of the events yourself or do you just pick it up on a Sunday morning, skim through it and throw it in the recycling bin? 

On that, do you think you'd easily be able to debunk a false headline if you did take that much effort in studying it?

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

you're the one claiming (and rightfully so) that the sun existed long before plants and yet are trying to tell me that scripture tells us that the sun was created after plants... If that's true, then you need to explain what that light was at the beginning of the story because according to you, it couldn't have been the sun.

Scripture specifically says plants were created before the sun. I am pointing out that is impossible. If you just want to admit it is completely wrong about the order things were created then we can look for more errors on page 2. Remember, you claimed scripture is accurate, which led to me pointing out the errors on page 1.

which still leaves us with the question of what the light was at the beginning of the story... your turn

Beyond Saving wrote:

wait... you have evidence of when it actually happened, or could have happend?  please share!  Mind you this indisputable evidence needs to be then associated to this story, or it's not indisputable... either that or the evidence the other person presented is false.   Either way this isn't looking good for your case.

No I have evidence that it could not have happened. The specific evidence depends on when you want tpo claim it happened. I have already demonstrated it could not have happened at 10,000 bc 200,000 bc or 2 ma. What dates do you want to explore next?

I'm pretty sure to be scientifically correct, you can't prove a negative... but I'll play... if dates is your defense, then it's a house built on sand.  We have no way of proving or disproving when these events took place.  We can deduce that certain things likely wouldn't have happened here or there, but unless you have evidence of something else happening, you have no indisputable proof.   

I have to say though, this stance you're taking is something I know you wouldn't buy from me, so why are you expecting it to work for you?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet the NY Times has been inaccurate many times in the past. It is only sensible to question its accuracy when it makes claims that do not match other knowledge you have or are unlikely on their face. There is nothing written by humans that is 100% credible. Even with a careful editorial process inaccuracies occur from ignorance, mistakes and sometimes intention. That is why all newspapers have a section for corrections. Historians often deal with a number of credible sources that tell very different stories of the same event. Especially when eyewitnesses are involved.

yea, the NYTimes was a random publication I pulled out of the air... the point still stands... e.g... If it were to be...

YOu are right about humans not being 100% credible.  Which is why there are so many concordances and studies to go along with scripture.  The inaccuracies of the Bible don't discredit the stories validity in history, only the specific point in question.. e.g. was it 10,000 or just 1,000... either way it happened.

Beyond Saving wrote:

What about his evidence suggests a flood is possible? Not a single geologist in the world interprets it that way, including him. Do you know something they don't?

The evidence he showed gave visual proof in rock formations that a flood of the magnitude... at least locally as described in scripture is possible and could happen.  It negates all the questions of "where could all that water come from?" or statements like; "there's not enough water on the planet to support such a flood, water has too many outlets and can't rise that high, etc."  It's only a peice of the puzzle, but it gets us about half way there

Beyond Saving wrote:

Not at all since you can't name any of the tribes. A few years ago I got interested in the topic and read about it extensively. I was more interested in South American tribes because that is where I traveled. But I did read about a minister in the late 1800's who argued that all tribes believed in god in some way. Since that time, he has been thoroughly discredited. It turns out the natives were simply repeating what he read to them from the bible. I have a folder full of bookmarks to anthropologist journals on the topic on my laptop. When I get home next week I will try to remember to link the relevant ones here.

If you have evidence to the contrary I would like to see it. I strongly doubt there are many cultures in Africa that have avoided anthropologists.

There are a few... and I never claimed that all tribes believe in God in the same way.  I'm only talking about this specific one... This goes back to the question of whether people who never get reached would know God, not necessarily, but yet it's obviously possible.

You're basing your belief off of my memory of the name of the tribe... really? History was never my strong point and this particular story, though interesting to me, was not documented by me, so of course the unique tribe name does slip my mind... it was somewhere near the Congo though I"m pretty sure. 

Obviously you're looking for excuses not to believe.  I have talked to you this long becasue for a while I've felt that you've had interest, but it sounds to me that you're more interested in proving me wrong vs. finding out the truth. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am a bit familiar with the systems of slavery and the conditions even well off slaves lived in, it clearly was not pleasant and it was involuntary. You need to do some research, it is not at all comparable to modern wage labor, whatever your feelings are about the morality of a capitalist system. No sane human would prefer ancient slavery to working at McDonalds. (Except maybe being a sex slave for Cleopatra wouldn't be a terrible gig if you like that sort of thing. Alas, the rumors of her having kinky sex with slaves are all from Roman sources and probably false designed to make her look bad.)

You can throw my challenge back to me, but it doesn't change for you.  I can read just the Bible and tell you that it wasn't completely out of choice... once you committed yourself you were committed without choice for 7 years, then you had a choice to stay or go.  A lot of times, families would sell unwilling children into labor to pay their bills, but again, after 7 years even that child had a choice by the slave owner to stay or go. 

I'm not saying it's a job, it is slavery, there's a reason why they call it that, but you obviously don't care to understand the details behind it.  I think we're done if you want to keep assuming and failing to make an effort.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

This entire part of your post says "I explained myself" (in the first half paragraph) which you didn't actually do, followed by...accusing me of misinterpreting the scriptures. You have just made my point for me. 

Also, note the bold part. The bible itself has very little, if any, support in history or archaeology. Every possible interpretation of the bible (other than ones that ignore words and sentences in VERY large chunks) is incompatible with what we know of history and archaeology. The flood thread, and your thread with PJTS show that your interpretation is no different. You are having your arguments refuted, then asserting that you have explained yourself. This is getting very repetitive. 

it was actually a challenge to you to show me why I'm wrong.  I was reiterating how I have yet to see reason to question what I think i know.  You kind of made my point for me here.

Yep, we're done in this thread. Your arguments are simply attempting to repeat what I have said, but directing it at me, even when it doesn't apply. Flood thread please, speciics in there.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

If the bible is always right, and any point where it seems to not be is a deficiency in our understanding, that is textbook special pleading with a side order of moving the goalposts. Such a position is not possible to argue against, because it is completely vacuous. This is why I've grown bored of this discussion. I'll still participate though, because it's fun to see what you'll come up with next. 

it's only special pleading if I'm not providing evidential reasoning behind why I think you misinterpreted it.  If I failed to provide logical reasoning somewhere, please let me know.  I have intended to follow up all claims of misinterpretation with the logic through language or other means that again can be googled for cross reference if you so desire.

Jabberwocky wrote:

No, that's not how this works.

wait... We don't present researchable evidence to back up claims of misunderstanding and misrepresentation?????????

You certainly don't.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

It is special pleading, because you assume the bible to be all true, but not other scriptures. Furthermore, you refuse to even consider the possibility that the bible is not all true. If you don't understand why you are engaging in special pleading, despite your assertion that you are not (and wackier still, that others, including myself, are), then I don't think you ever will, and we are done here. I'm not saying I won't respond to you (you might come up with something completely wacky I won't be able to resist replying to), but I don't think there is any point to further discussion between us in this thread. I welcome our discussion to continue in the flood thread though, because we are touching on far more specific points there. 

Now you're misrepresenting me.  I assume the Bible to be a true and accurate representation of God.  I believe other scriptures have truth in them, but do not teach of my God.  Furthermore, I have considered the possibility for years that the Bible is not all true and through lots of research and growth have concluded that it is all true. 

I honestly don't understand your approach here be it that it's pretty much all based on assumption and you seem to claim I can't just back myself up with evidence, but if that's how you want it, I do believe we are done here.

Yep, done in this thread. Over to the flood thread (even though you're trying to steer people away from it it seems)

Any steering away from that thread I've done is for those conversations that were losing focus on the OP topic.  I'm steering them to here because this thread at this point has no focus or aim... just blind assumption.  Good talking to ya though. 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
That means NOTHING ! By the Lycaonian language they cried out :

caposkia wrote:

 

...which doesn't necessarily qualify him to be a scholar credible enough to discuss a theological topic.   

Any idiot can publish books as you say, but publishers don't typically buy rights to texts from idiots... and if they do, they typically don't make the same mistake twice, let alone 250 times. 

 

caposkia wrote:
they do, they typically don't make the same mistake twice, let alone 250 times

 

   I dont think you are fully appreciating the point. I am sorry you cannot seem to be willing to acknowledge points. I ran across an artist lady fully convinced that the blue bloods, as they put it, are either the descendants of the Lyraens or the truly baddies the off-world mythic ancient reptilian races such as the large Dracs or better known as the Draconians. These authors have been saying the same thing FOR DECADES upon decades of time.

 

  See :: Uploaded image from the New Testament book of Acts (Text from Acts included).

 


 

 ..When he had fixed his gaze on him and had seen that he had faith to be made well,said with a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he leaped up and began to walk. When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have become like men and have come down to us.” And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.  But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul  heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of  THE SAME NATURE AS YOU.

 

  p.s.  -- I apologize for you not feeling comfortable around this thread, I am not privy to what internal dialog is going on within you.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:You put

caposkia wrote:

You put metaphysics in there huh?  I'm sorry, metaphysics exists.  It is a study taken seriously by most in the scientific world...

Metaphysics as philosophy exists. I meant the metaphysics ideas suggested by theology that there is something beyond physics such as a soul.

 

caposkia wrote:

Your evidence that dark matter exists is similar to Christians claiming demons or God exist...

No, it isn't. The hypothesis of dark matter comes from a significant amount of scientific research and it is something that we can expect to either prove or disprove in the future.

 

caposkia wrote:

Either you accept that dark matter exists and is an actual "thing" out there, or you don't. 

Or the third option which is to admit that we don't know. No scientist is going to assert with certainty that dark matter exists and start describing the exact nature of it. If someone comes out with evidence that it doesn't exist, scientists aren't going to keep saying it might. If someone were to provide evidence that other theories to explain the anomalies attributed to dark matter are more likely like MOND or TeVeS theories, then scientists will believe those. Dark matter is the theory that is favored by most because it explains our current observations better than the others. That is very different from deciding to believe in demons when there is no evidence of their existence and the things attributed to demons are better explained by natural phenomena that we know exists.

 

caposkia wrote:

ok, so all the chasers did not die... what happened to them and why were Moses' people able to stop running and settle?  If they just retreated and forever left them alone, then as far as anyone in the story's concerned, they died... no one ever saw them again.  Doesn't change what happened.

Well since it probably never happened, nothing changes it. The only point is that there is a plausible explanation for a natural event to have occurred which inspired the story.

 

caposkia wrote:

based on research and experience.    Do you spend years reading and rereading the same newspaper article and cross referencing, researching history, talking to people with experience and experiencing some of the events yourself or do you just pick it up on a Sunday morning, skim through it and throw it in the recycling bin? 

On that, do you think you'd easily be able to debunk a false headline if you did take that much effort in studying it?

Often, 5 minutes on Google is more than sufficient to determine that a newspaper headline is bullshit. 

 

caposkia wrote:

which still leaves us with the question of what the light was at the beginning of the story... your turn

I don't know, you are the one who believes the story- you tell me. I don't think the story is true and that is specifically states the sun was made after vegetation, that is one reason to doubt its accuracy. That it asserts some other undefined light source existed before the sun and when the Earth existed is another reason to doubt its accuracy.

 

caposkia wrote:

I'm pretty sure to be scientifically correct, you can't prove a negative...

You can come up with mountains of evidence that make believing a negative borderline insane. You can assert that it is impossible to prove anything, but that is a philosophical argument. Scientifically speaking, scientists prove that things didn't happen all the time.

 

caposkia wrote:

but I'll play... if dates is your defense, then it's a house built on sand.  We have no way of proving or disproving when these events took place. 

Yes, we do. We have all sorts of ways of determining when and where flooding happened.

 

caposkia wrote:

We can deduce that certain things likely wouldn't have happened here or there, but unless you have evidence of something else happening, you have no indisputable proof.   

We have evidence of all sorts of things happening. There are volumes upon volumes of evidence of various events happening among humanity. That evidence is not consistent with the story you choose to believe.

 

caposkia wrote:

I have to say though, this stance you're taking is something I know you wouldn't buy from me, so why are you expecting it to work for you?

You are wrong. If you had a shred of actual evidence I would buy it. You have none. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

caposkia wrote:

The evidence he showed gave visual proof in rock formations that a flood of the magnitude... at least locally as described in scripture is possible and could happen.  It negates all the questions of "where could all that water come from?" or statements like; "there's not enough water on the planet to support such a flood, water has too many outlets and can't rise that high, etc."  It's only a peice of the puzzle, but it gets us about half way there

No, it doesn't. Even the guy who you are using as a source doesn't believe that. Either the rock formations were formed over millions of years, as most geologists believe, in which case they were NOT formed by a single flood- OR they were formed instantly by a single flood in which case the Earth isn't nearly as old as geologists believe and all of our dating techniques are fundamentally flawed. It cannot be both, the theories are mutually exclusive. Only one can be correct and the theory that it was caused by a single flood necessitates that the Earth is young, which you told me you do not believe. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

There are a few... and I never claimed that all tribes believe in God in the same way.  I'm only talking about this specific one...

I am only asking for one example of an isolated tribe that believes in a god that is clearly the abrahamic god despite never hearing the stories of the bible.

 

caposkia wrote:

This goes back to the question of whether people who never get reached would know God, not necessarily, but yet it's obviously possible.

Obviously? I don't think so. Peoples who have never met a missionary tend to have radically different concepts of god or gods than Christianity. The only thing that appears to be obvious is that if the Abrahamic god does exist, he didn't see a need to interact with those people at all.

 

caposkia wrote:

You're basing your belief off of my memory of the name of the tribe... really? History was never my strong point and this particular story, though interesting to me, was not documented by me, so of course the unique tribe name does slip my mind... it was somewhere near the Congo though I"m pretty sure. 

Obviously you're looking for excuses not to believe.  I have talked to you this long becasue for a while I've felt that you've had interest, but it sounds to me that you're more interested in proving me wrong vs. finding out the truth.

I'm doubting it because in my previous study on the topic I found nothing of the sort. Since you can point me towards a source to support your assertion, I am skeptical. Since no one else has chimed in to support it I am skeptical because we have several people on here who have studied African religions extensively. Since my searches on Google and Jstor have turned up nothing that supports your claim, I am skeptical. Since you have made several claims with confidence and certainty about issues I did know a lot about that were false, I am skeptical. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am a bit familiar with the systems of slavery and the conditions even well off slaves lived in, it clearly was not pleasant and it was involuntary. You need to do some research, it is not at all comparable to modern wage labor, whatever your feelings are about the morality of a capitalist system. No sane human would prefer ancient slavery to working at McDonalds. (Except maybe being a sex slave for Cleopatra wouldn't be a terrible gig if you like that sort of thing. Alas, the rumors of her having kinky sex with slaves are all from Roman sources and probably false designed to make her look bad.)

You can throw my challenge back to me, but it doesn't change for you.  I can read just the Bible and tell you that it wasn't completely out of choice... once you committed yourself you were committed without choice for 7 years, then you had a choice to stay or go.  A lot of times, families would sell unwilling children into labor to pay their bills, but again, after 7 years even that child had a choice by the slave owner to stay or go. 

I'm not saying it's a job, it is slavery, there's a reason why they call it that, but you obviously don't care to understand the details behind it.  I think we're done if you want to keep assuming and failing to make an effort.

I do know the details behind it. I never made the assertion that it was similar to slavery in the US. I made the assertion that the slavery was immoral and nothing like modern wage labor that you equated it to. Whether the system in place when the bible was written was better than other systems of slavery in history is completely irrelevant. The system was still immoral.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:caposkia

danatemporary wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 

...which doesn't necessarily qualify him to be a scholar credible enough to discuss a theological topic.   

Any idiot can publish books as you say, but publishers don't typically buy rights to texts from idiots... and if they do, they typically don't make the same mistake twice, let alone 250 times. 

 

caposkia wrote:
they do, they typically don't make the same mistake twice, let alone 250 times

 

   I dont think you are fully appreciating the point. I am sorry you cannot seem to be willing to acknowledge points. I ran across an artist lady fully convinced that the blue bloods, as they put it, are either the descendants of the Lyraens or the truly baddies the off-world mythic ancient reptilian races such as the large Dracs or better known as the Draconians. These authors have been saying the same thing FOR DECADES upon decades of time.

 

  See :: Uploaded image from the New Testament book of Acts (Text from Acts included).

 


 

 ..When he had fixed his gaze on him and had seen that he had faith to be made well,said with a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he leaped up and began to walk. When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have become like men and have come down to us.” And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.  But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul  heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of  THE SAME NATURE AS YOU.

 

  p.s.  -- I apologize for you not feeling comfortable around this thread, I am not privy to what internal dialog is going on within you.

no worries.  I acknowledge his point.  My point is that it doesn't make his case any better.  Anyone can claim anything about a persons intelligence, integrity or otherwise, but unless they can actually back themselves up, all they have is an opinion.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Metaphysics as philosophy exists. I meant the metaphysics ideas suggested by theology that there is something beyond physics such as a soul.

Ah

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Your evidence that dark matter exists is similar to Christians claiming demons or God exist...

No, it isn't. The hypothesis of dark matter comes from a significant amount of scientific research and it is something that we can expect to either prove or disprove in the future.

I rest my case. 

A believer once told me that there is a significant amount of research that supports the existence of God scientific and otherwise and that when Christ returns, we can expect that proof to manifest itself to those who still doubt. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Or the third option which is to admit that we don't know. No scientist is going to assert with certainty that dark matter exists and start describing the exact nature of it. If someone comes out with evidence that it doesn't exist, scientists aren't going to keep saying it might. If someone were to provide evidence that other theories to explain the anomalies attributed to dark matter are more likely like MOND or TeVeS theories, then scientists will believe those. Dark matter is the theory that is favored by most because it explains our current observations better than the others. That is very different from deciding to believe in demons when there is no evidence of their existence and the things attributed to demons are better explained by natural phenomena that we know exists.

The point is, you know something out there is affecting things beyond what we can see.  Same with Christians.  The biggest question is usually how can we be so sure that our God is the real God.  Faith and research.  I've always said that if some information came along in the future that showed me that God isn't quite what we were believing from scripture, then I would change my understanding.  However, everything has only further confirmed scripture as describing the True God. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

caposkia wrote:

ok, so all the chasers did not die... what happened to them and why were Moses' people able to stop running and settle?  If they just retreated and forever left them alone, then as far as anyone in the story's concerned, they died... no one ever saw them again.  Doesn't change what happened.

Well since it probably never happened, nothing changes it. The only point is that there is a plausible explanation for a natural event to have occurred which inspired the story.

So then you're abandoning your previous point? 

ok, at least we're getting somewhere. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

based on research and experience.    Do you spend years reading and rereading the same newspaper article and cross referencing, researching history, talking to people with experience and experiencing some of the events yourself or do you just pick it up on a Sunday morning, skim through it and throw it in the recycling bin? 

On that, do you think you'd easily be able to debunk a false headline if you did take that much effort in studying it?

Often, 5 minutes on Google is more than sufficient to determine that a newspaper headline is bullshit. 

exactly

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

which still leaves us with the question of what the light was at the beginning of the story... your turn

I don't know, you are the one who believes the story- you tell me. I don't think the story is true and that is specifically states the sun was made after vegetation, that is one reason to doubt its accuracy. That it asserts some other undefined light source existed before the sun and when the Earth existed is another reason to doubt its accuracy.

and despite discussion of likely possibilities of what it could be and why the story might have mentioned "the sun" later on, you're under the belief that it is explicitly stating a series of events in order and that the sun was created after.  So it is in your hands to tell me what the light is if you're sticking to your point. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

You can come up with mountains of evidence that make believing a negative borderline insane. You can assert that it is impossible to prove anything, but that is a philosophical argument. Scientifically speaking, scientists prove that things didn't happen all the time.

Which takes science out of the equation for our conversation. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Yes, we do. We have all sorts of ways of determining when and where flooding happened.

once you find its occurrence.  We have no way of determining when something happened that we have yet to find physical evidence of.  Hence the many different theories of dates particular creations by humanity in the last century. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

We have evidence of all sorts of things happening. There are volumes upon volumes of evidence of various events happening among humanity. That evidence is not consistent with the story you choose to believe.

lets' discuss that then... I'm sure you're talking about more evidence... like a specific timeline of a peoplegroup that does not coenside with what has happened rather than numbers and dates that we can't be sure of. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

I have to say though, this stance you're taking is something I know you wouldn't buy from me, so why are you expecting it to work for you?

You are wrong. If you had a shred of actual evidence I would buy it. You have none. Zero. Zip. Nada.

right... so again, why do you think that's going to work for you?

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, it doesn't. Even the guy who you are using as a source doesn't believe that. Either the rock formations were formed over millions of years, as most geologists believe, in which case they were NOT formed by a single flood- OR they were formed instantly by a single flood in which case the Earth isn't nearly as old as geologists believe and all of our dating techniques are fundamentally flawed. It cannot be both, the theories are mutually exclusive. Only one can be correct and the theory that it was caused by a single flood necessitates that the Earth is young, which you told me you do not believe. 

... um... ok what is it then in those rock formations that form over millions of years do they see to determine when certain specific phenomena like floods or other severe weather events happened that would have happened over a period of months or single digit years vs. millions of years?  think about what you just said.  no one claimed a whole rock formation was made by a flood.  only that evidence of a flood is within a rock formation

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

I am only asking for one example of an isolated tribe that believes in a god that is clearly the abrahamic god despite never hearing the stories of the bible.

the one I know of I told you.  I don't remember the name and I'm not a historian nor an expert on isolated world tribes. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Obviously? I don't think so. Peoples who have never met a missionary tend to have radically different concepts of god or gods than Christianity. The only thing that appears to be obvious is that if the Abrahamic god does exist, he didn't see a need to interact with those people at all.

Gods interaction with people does not determine what they call Him or even what they believe about Him unless He specifically told them something.  OT scripture many times showed examples of people mistaking God for other gods. 

obviously based on a first person witness of the tribe.  you don't think so because you accept nothing that is told you, only what you think you know and will accept on your own.  yet I've given you no reason to think I'm lying to you.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm doubting it because in my previous study on the topic I found nothing of the sort. Since you can point me towards a source to support your assertion, I am skeptical. Since no one else has chimed in to support it I am skeptical because we have several people on here who have studied African religions extensively. Since my searches on Google and Jstor have turned up nothing that supports your claim, I am skeptical. Since you have made several claims with confidence and certainty about issues I did know a lot about that were false, I am skeptical. 

The course was based out of Trinity college, they might have something on it.  keep in mind they were an isolated, untouched tribe.  How long ago was your research?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I do know the details behind it. I never made the assertion that it was similar to slavery in the US. I made the assertion that the slavery was immoral and nothing like modern wage labor that you equated it to. Whether the system in place when the bible was written was better than other systems of slavery in history is completely irrelevant. The system was still immoral.

it was the play on words that you seem to be generalizing it to... not a comparison. 

all in all, it's slavery.  unlike your assumption, choices were made, they were not kidnapped nor condemned through to thier children like in America.  This of course referring to the slavery God made rules about in the OT. 

the immorality of slavery was the way of the land and not by Gods command which is why He made laws about it.  Ultimately, if you read those laws carefully, God kind of took the "slavery" idea out of slavery

 let's move on to your next point. 

So at this point we've got:

Slavery is immoral = God is immoral = God doesn't exist.  Due to lack of reasoning in that conclusion, i can't buy it.  What's next.

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I rest my

caposkia wrote:

I rest my case. 

A believer once told me that there is a significant amount of research that supports the existence of God scientific and otherwise and that when Christ returns, we can expect that proof to manifest itself to those who still doubt. 

Yeah, a theist told me the same thing once. As soon as I was able to stop laughing I asked to see where all this great research was, turns out it mysteriously disappeared. 

 

caposkia wrote:

The point is, you know something out there is affecting things beyond what we can see.  Same with Christians.  The biggest question is usually how can we be so sure that our God is the real God.  Faith and research. 

Not at all the same. What we know is that there are certain phenomena that cannot be explained by our current models. Dark matter is one hypothesis that explains those anomalies, so there might be something out there that we haven't seen yet. Others have suggested that our laws of gravity are wrong and with modification can explain the anomalies. The difference is that these hypothesis' are not based on faith and are not just randomly made up.

 

caposkia wrote:

I've always said that if some information came along in the future that showed me that God isn't quite what we were believing from scripture, then I would change my understanding.  However, everything has only further confirmed scripture as describing the True God. 

Yes, you have said that, yet when confronted with evidence that Noah's flood could not have occurred at any given point within the last 2 million years or any point earlier than 2 million years you still maintain the understanding that the event occurred.

 

caposkia wrote:

and despite discussion of likely possibilities of what it could be and why the story might have mentioned "the sun" later on, you're under the belief that it is explicitly stating a series of events in order and that the sun was created after.  So it is in your hands to tell me what the light is if you're sticking to your point. 

Why do I have to explain yet another flaw in a story you say is true? I don't believe the story, I don't believe there was another light. How does it fall on me to explain something that I don't believe exists? The point of this whole tangent was my claim that the Bible does not conform with what we know of science. It quite clearly lists that different things were made on different days. The Bible very clearly creates a timeline. So if taken as the literal truth, it is wrong. If you want to use your "poetic license" defense then you have to admit that the bible is not perfectly accurate and we shouldn't interpret things literally. Which then makes it pretty foolish to interpret the rest of the bible literally. 

 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

You can come up with mountains of evidence that make believing a negative borderline insane. You can assert that it is impossible to prove anything, but that is a philosophical argument. Scientifically speaking, scientists prove that things didn't happen all the time.

Which takes science out of the equation for our conversation. 

How? I've already conceded the philosophical argument. It is possible that an omnipotent being exists and erased all evidence of its existence. It is also possible that we are a computer program. It is also batshit insane to believe either of these things.

 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 You are wrong. If you had a shred of actual evidence I would buy it. You have none. Zero. Zip. Nada.

right... so again, why do you think that's going to work for you?

Alright. End of discussion then. This whole thing started because you claimed that you did have evidence of God's existence and I asked for it. If you have none and you just believe it because you want to believe it then fine, enjoy your fantasy.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

... um... ok what is it then in those rock formations that form over millions of years do they see to determine when certain specific phenomena like floods or other severe weather events happened that would have happened over a period of months or single digit years vs. millions of years?  think about what you just said.  no one claimed a whole rock formation was made by a flood.  only that evidence of a flood is within a rock formation

Yes, that is exactly what he claims. He claims all of the sediment could only have been moved in a single short term event.  It is an absolutely insane claim, but it is apparently the only evidence you have.

 

caposkia wrote:

 yet I've given you no reason to think I'm lying to you.

I don't think you are lying. I believe that you believe everything you are saying. I do believe that you are ignorant and I do find it quite possible that you were lied to by others and ate it up.

 

caposkia wrote:

The course was based out of Trinity college, they might have something on it.  keep in mind they were an isolated, untouched tribe.  How long ago was your research?

4 or 5 years ago.

 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

it was the play on words that you seem to be generalizing it to... not a comparison. 

all in all, it's slavery.  unlike your assumption, choices were made, they were not kidnapped nor condemned through to thier children like in America.  This of course referring to the slavery God made rules about in the OT. 

the immorality of slavery was the way of the land and not by Gods command which is why He made laws about it.  Ultimately, if you read those laws carefully, God kind of took the "slavery" idea out of slavery

Uh, huh. That is why the system didn't continue to exist? Oh wait, it did, for almost 1,000 years after the bible was written. It wasn't until 1435 when the Catholics finally decided to be anti-slavery, by that point it was already fashionable in Europe to be anti-slavery. Why didn't God simply make a law against it? He was creating laws that were supposedly changing the "way of the land". What point would there be issuing laws if they were already in place?

 

caposkia wrote:

let's move on to your next point. 

So at this point we've got:

Slavery is immoral = God is immoral = God doesn't exist.  Due to lack of reasoning in that conclusion, i can't buy it.  What's next.

Because that is not my argument. 

P1: Slavery is immoral

P2: God supported slavery

P3: A perfectly moral being would not support something that is immoral

C1: Therefore, God is not perfectly moral.

My argument that God doesn't exist was a separate tangent upon which I was making separate assumptions. For the sake of the morality discussion, I was assuming that God existed and that the Bible is an accurate representation of him.

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Yeah, a

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, a theist told me the same thing once. As soon as I was able to stop laughing I asked to see where all this great research was, turns out it mysteriously disappeared. 

you know now that there really is research out there.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Not at all the same. What we know is that there are certain phenomena that cannot be explained by our current models. Dark matter is one hypothesis that explains those anomalies, so there might be something out there that we haven't seen yet. Others have suggested that our laws of gravity are wrong and with modification can explain the anomalies. The difference is that these hypothesis' are not based on faith and are not just randomly made up.

...and so the difference is...............  faith is based on what we know, we don't base belief on faith. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, you have said that, yet when confronted with evidence that Noah's flood could not have occurred at any given point within the last 2 million years or any point earlier than 2 million years you still maintain the understanding that the event occurred.

oh wait... what you presented was suppose to show me that it couldn't have happened in the past 2 million years?  I didn't get that from your case.  Only that we can't pinpoint a date. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

and despite discussion of likely possibilities of what it could be and why the story might have mentioned "the sun" later on, you're under the belief that it is explicitly stating a series of events in order and that the sun was created after.  So it is in your hands to tell me what the light is if you're sticking to your point. 

Why do I have to explain yet another flaw in a story you say is true? I don't believe the story, I don't believe there was another light. How does it fall on me to explain something that I don't believe exists? The point of this whole tangent was my claim that the Bible does not conform with what we know of science. It quite clearly lists that different things were made on different days. The Bible very clearly creates a timeline. So if taken as the literal truth, it is wrong. If you want to use your "poetic license" defense then you have to admit that the bible is not perfectly accurate and we shouldn't interpret things literally. Which then makes it pretty foolish to interpret the rest of the bible literally. 

you have to explain the light because you're the one rejecting every other understanding of what it could be... (poetry not putting it all in chronological order, failure to pull the order appropriately from memory as the writer wrote, or the light being God or provided by God consisting of the same characteristics that would allow for photosynthesis)  therefore you must have information we don't.  The poetry one is more commonly accepted. 

I know you don't believe the story, yet for someone who doesn't believe it, you have a lot to say about it. 

I have mentioned before many times you have to be careful what you interpret as literal and what you don't... e.g. if you want to take the whole Bible literally then your dog should drink your blood.  Taking stuff literally also in many cases fails to consider context and writing style as in the dog reference here. 

I only use the poetic license possibility here because in Hebrew it was written in poetic form, not list form like we read it today.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You can come up with mountains of evidence that make believing a negative borderline insane. You can assert that it is impossible to prove anything, but that is a philosophical argument. Scientifically speaking, scientists prove that things didn't happen all the time.

Which takes science out of the equation for our conversation. 

How? I've already conceded the philosophical argument. It is possible that an omnipotent being exists and erased all evidence of its existence. It is also possible that we are a computer program. It is also batshit insane to believe either of these things.

The problem with scientists proving that things didn't happen is by doing so they showed what actually happened... unless we're able to do that with this story, science won't work here.

So again, you must show me what light was there if it wasn't the sun and poetic license did not relocate its reference. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Alright. End of discussion then. This whole thing started because you claimed that you did have evidence of God's existence and I asked for it. If you have none and you just believe it because you want to believe it then fine, enjoy your fantasy.

That's what you'd like to believe that's fine... you as well can enjoy your fantasy.  it's been fun Eye-wink

Beyond Saving wrote:

4 or 5 years ago.

hmm... that is close to when I learned of the tribe.  Did your research include missionaries travels and expeditions?

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

Uh, huh. That is why the system didn't continue to exist? Oh wait, it did, for almost 1,000 years after the bible was written. It wasn't until 1435 when the Catholics finally decided to be anti-slavery, by that point it was already fashionable in Europe to be anti-slavery. Why didn't God simply make a law against it? He was creating laws that were supposedly changing the "way of the land". What point would there be issuing laws if they were already in place?

they weren't.  He took what was already there and modified it so that it wouldn't work the way it was... e.g. forced slavery to choosing slavery, then having wages and freedom to leave.  kind of takes the slave aspect out of it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

P1: Slavery is immoral

P2: God supported slavery

P3: A perfectly moral being would not support something that is immoral

C1: Therefore, God is not perfectly moral.

My argument that God doesn't exist was a separate tangent upon which I was making separate assumptions. For the sake of the morality discussion, I was assuming that God existed and that the Bible is an accurate representation of him.

then I refer back to my statement above about how Gods laws modified the slavery to be... well more of a live in job... with slavery aspects to it. 

also, you have to take into consideration what progress God would have made with the people if He chose to strait out abolish the very thing people thrived on at the time. 

just so we don't make assumptions, let me tell you... they would have gone with another god that approved of it or didn't have any rules considering it.  Just as people today choose atheism or belief, so people then chose gods. 

no God didn't need the people, but He wants them


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, a theist told me the same thing once. As soon as I was able to stop laughing I asked to see where all this great research was, turns out it mysteriously disappeared. 

you know now that there really is research out there.

Well apparently I don't have a security level high enough to see it.

 

caposkia wrote:

The problem with scientists proving that things didn't happen is by doing so they showed what actually happened... unless we're able to do that with this story, science won't work here.

No. There are two ways a scientist can prove that a hypothesis is wrong. Yes, they can prove one hypothesis is wrong by finding positive evidence that another hypothesis is true. However, it is quite routine in the scientific world to come up with a hypothesis, test it and discover that the results do not match the prediction. This means that the prediction produced by the hypothesis is wrong, which means the hypothesis is wrong. The scientist will then modify the hypothesis, or throw it out altogether and test others. You can eliminate many hypotheses by proving that they are not possible without ever finding one that works. IOW, often we can proven what didn't happen, even if we don't really know what did happen.

 

caposkia wrote:

hmm... that is close to when I learned of the tribe.  Did your research include missionaries travels and expeditions?

I read books written by a few missionaries. I linked to one about the Pirahã earlier in this thread.

 

caposkia wrote:

they weren't.  He took what was already there and modified it so that it wouldn't work the way it was... e.g. forced slavery to choosing slavery, then having wages and freedom to leave.  kind of takes the slave aspect out of it.

Sounds nice, but that isn't at all how the institution of slavery happened. Classical slavery was in place long before the Bible was written, and it stayed in place in several variations for another 1,000 years. Then chattel (or neo) slavery started which eventually led to the American style institution before the complete elimination of legal slavery in the modern world.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X