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. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Who is

Brian37 wrote:

Who is running? I am sorry if my bluntness and shortness bothers you, but it really does not take that long to read crap to know it is crap. You might have believed in Santa for a while, but you grew up on that topic.

you were for a while, but anyway, your bluntness and shortness never bothered me... I was humored, but it never bothered me. 

I know how easy it is to detect crap when you read it, why do you think I was so sarcastic with you and had a hard time taking you serously?  

Brian37 wrote:

If any god claim in human history were more than their own wishful thinking, any religion could prove their god as easily as proving your computer exists. So I really am not a fan of walking down the yellow brick road of comic books of mythology. I put the same challenge to you that I do any other religion or god claimant. Get your claim confirmed in a neutral lab with testing and falsification and peer review. If you do that, you can beat everyone to the patent office and even win a Nobel Prize in "god theory".

yea, we've been through that.. when you ran from the challenge to explain how to get a sample of God, or how to examine metaphysical material, we kind of lost focus on the topic.

Brian37 wrote:

But I hate to burst your bubble, but you will find as much luck with that as those who believed the sun had a god, or that Thor made lightening, or that Allah is real. You really would like to think you are not standing in the DMV trying to pass off fiction to get your drivers licence to the unfortanite sane employee who knows they will get bitched out even though you could not read the eye chart and ran people over in the road test. 

If you really think you got the one true god, you are a fool. Humans make up gods and always have. So I will tell you what I tell Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Rastafarians, Muslims ect ect ect ect. Just like at the DMV "Get in line and take a number".

all have failed to show me what you seem to be so sure about... I do think I follow the one True God..  The almighty God of Gods and Lord of Lords... if you have reasoning as to why I might not, please do share.  No BS though.. let's stick to the topic this time.


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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

If you've been honest, then you are deluding yourself. 

You can't say, being intellectually honest, that you know that god is the source of that story, but that you also know that god (via the angel Gabriel) isn't the source for the Qu'ran. 

I can say that the story was 'inspired" by God... not the author... the author is the speculator... God stated in many other parts that no one can see his face and survive.

God stated this? So there are parts of the bible that are written by god, rather than inspired by him? How do you differentiate the two? How can you demonstrate that the verses that say that his face was seen were embellished by authors, but the verses that state it as impossible were god's actual words? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have said that you believe that it is impossible for the face of god to be seen, and always has. You probably based that on things the bible says(the verses in John, 1 John and 1 Timothy that I have brought up). You take those verses as 100% accurate ones. Then, you take the words of other parts of the book that directly contradict it, and say that they are in error. Then, you will cite stories from the same books (Genesis and Exodus) and claim that they must be true (like the flood, the Tower of Babel, and the Exodus from Egypt). You have said specifically that these books are subject to errors, but then also must be correct. You have not provided any method by deducing what in the bible is definitely true, and what is only somewhat true, even though your position requires that to be the case. Then in other points, you say it is all true. I don't see how you can possibly call your position consistent in any way shape or form. Since you have also said that god can not do what is logically impossible, you have bound everyone and everything (even god) to the laws of logic. Your position regarding biblical errancy contradicts that. You also say that you are being honest. That leaves one possibility; you are deluded. It logically follows 100% with our conversations in both of these threads we have been responding to one another in often. Every time I have called you on this, you respond with more vague bullshit. If you can't even organize your thoughts enough to explain what parts of the bible are to be taken literally word for word, which are not, and why, then there is nothing further to discuss. 

you're comparing specifics to generalities....

e.g.  the flood was a whole story, the claim of seeing Gods face is a specific verse here and there.  Tower of Babel is also a whole story as well as the Exodus...  The specifics are based on context... it is understood that the stories as a whole are true. 

If you want to question my logic or understanding on something you think I'm contradicting myself on or the Bible for that matter, please specify the two so we can compare.  If you say I believe the exodus is true, but then pull out  a random verse and ask why I don't claim the same matter of fact understanding, then you're comparing apples to oranges.  The Exodus I believe is true... do I think that every single statement within the story of the Exodus should be taken absolutely literally??? probably not... I can't think of an example now, but I'm sure you could find one if you wanted.  

I will give specific reasoning if I don't take it literally and it always applies to the context.  e.g., I'v pointed out how the "face to face" statement can be taken in many different ways despite how many on here want to deny that, thus you can't claim that visual observations were taken of God from that single statement.  

 

Yes I am. I am showing how you have made a judgement that god can not be seen, based on the bible. I am showing you that you are taking specific verses (the 4 cited in the new testament) that say that god's face can not be seen (at least not with the person surviving the ordeal) as 100% truth. This is what you state. I don't believe you have stated that you based your belief that god's face can't be seen on those 4 verses that I brought up, but they seem to be the strongest indicators in the bible that it's the case. If that's not where you got that from, please tell me specifically what gave you the idea that god's face can't be seen.

 

Then, you take other parts of the bible (in Genesis and Exodus, regarding interactions with god, the father) and NOT take those specific verses literally. I would venture that you would take them literally if they weren't contradicted later, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. However, you have, so far, failed to indicate how one properly determines which parts of the bible are to be taken as literal truth in each sentence, and which parts are to be taken as generally correct, but off on details (due to writer embellishment or some other such issue). It's what you get from any Christian, because the bible is obviously bullshit. How do I know this? 

It's very simple. There are two extremes of Christianity that I've been able to identify when it comes to interpreting the bible. One, which says that every single word is literally true, is describing literal history, and the entire book is infallible. AKA the young earth creationist. They are of course wrong, and even YOU would agree on that, because you seem to accept at least some scientific facts regarding the age of the earth and such. However, it's simple to dismiss them immediately, because even YOU would agree that the bible contradicts itself when taken this way (otherwise, this conversation would have been over a long time ago. You have conceded that author error is a possibility). The other extreme is someone who takes the gospels to be generally true, but dismisses virtually the entire old testament as allegory (think Kenneth Miller or Francis Collins). However, when you get someone from the latter category, they will NEVER in advance tell you how one can determine which parts of the bible are to be taken literally, and which ones aren't. The reason for that is because there is no such process. The closest you'll get is "what we know to be literally false is allegory, and the rest is literally true..."....until more is disproven. It's cognitive dissonance at its finest. I think that Collins and Miller are both brilliant in their disciplines of biology. Kenneth Miller is also a brilliant spokesman for methodological naturalism. It's refreshing to see that a Christian testified for the correct side in court when far intelectually inferior Christians wanted to use the school system to perpetuate absolute bullshit in science classes. Despite all that, and the fact that they probably think about hundreds of times more things about biology than I will ever know on a daily basis, I think that they're Christians either because of a fear of death, or some bizarre other mental glitch. As people who are methodological naturalists, I don't think that either of them would reasonable accept the challenge of determining the level of truth of any part of the bible, because they simply have a special box in their brain where the way they evaluate everything else in life just can't apply. That said, I wouldn't ever have that conversation with either of them unless they asked me, because I'm not an asshole. They're not on this forum. You are. 

Now while the view of a Kenneth Miller is more consistent with the real world than the view of a young earth creationist, the view of the YEC is far more theologically sound, as the very thought that Genesis is an allegory is absurd. The concept of original sin is a necessary doctrine for Christianity to be true in any meaningful sense. If Christianity is true, and Genesis was inspired by god, but an allegory, why in the fuck would a god do that, knowing that we would figure out our actual origins and question the crap out of it? It wouldn't be possible for a human to have written even a mildly accurate allegory without being inspired by god (since humans almost certainly predated communication complex enough to convey such concepts, and even if they didn't, with concise communication we suck at passing things down without writing them down). If a god inspired someone to write Genesis, why not give the actual story? Imagine if Genesis was a similar story theologically, but completely different (and more accurate) literally, and the more research we did regarding the origins of humans, other life, the earth, etc., the more we found Genesis 1-2 to be accurate over time. Imagine if the more historical records of ancient civilizations we find, the more accurate we find the rest of Genesis to be.

If that were the case, becoming a Christian (or at least converting to Judaism) would basically be a consequence of getting more educated. How come getting more educated seems to have an inverse correlation with (all) religiosity instead? It's as if the origin of all religions aren't based in any sense on reality. What a funny thing that is...

 

What I want from you here, is what I asserted that no Christian will ever do; explain how one properly determines what degree of truth lies in each part of the bible, and how we go about determining that. If you can do that concisely, you'll be the first person I've ever seen even attempt it.

 

You say that you will give specific reasoning, and even claim that you have regarding the face-to-face bit. I don't accept your argument. If a sentence that specific can be taken many different ways, then why don't the 4 verses in the NT I mentioned have that same problem? Why does the verse in Judges 13:22 implicitly state at least a one exception to this rule, when you claim that there are none? Basically, you are saying that a certain verse can be taken different ways. Even if I were to accept that, then why should I not accept that the 4 NT verses I cited can't also be taken in different ways? 

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:God stated

Jabberwocky wrote:

God stated this? So there are parts of the bible that are written by god, rather than inspired by him? How do you differentiate the two? How can you demonstrate that the verses that say that his face was seen were embellished by authors, but the verses that state it as impossible were god's actual words? 

By the key words, "God said" and implication of God speaking in a conversation... you know... the same cues we use when reading any story when people are talking. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes I am. I am showing how you have made a judgement that god can not be seen, based on the bible. I am showing you that you are taking specific verses (the 4 cited in the new testament) that say that god's face can not be seen (at least not with the person surviving the ordeal) as 100% truth. This is what you state. I don't believe you have stated that you based your belief that god's face can't be seen on those 4 verses that I brought up, but they seem to be the strongest indicators in the bible that it's the case. If that's not where you got that from, please tell me specifically what gave you the idea that god's face can't be seen.

you said it... other places imply it as well be it that no one also claims to have ever seen the face of God.  I have made a deduction, not a judgement.... you are taking one speculative verse, one that is written in Hebrew using the context that Moses went up to have a personal conversation with God.... that would be the intention of hte statement.... and trying to say from that that Moses looked at Gods face....  You then claim above several other verses claiming that Gods face cannot be seen... one vs. several, what holds more water.

Also, is this really worth all this time?  really?  I must ask...  What does this do for your case?  I never claimed to know everything and if something is ponited out in scripture that contradicts my thinking or understanding, I will do my homework and correct my ways... my case is that the Bible is true... not necessarily everything I think is true... I hope what i think is true is congruent with the Bible... so far it seems so... but if I'm wrong here, what does that prove?  that I'm imperfect and may have misunderstood scripture?   happens all the time... however in this case, I think you've more than effectively proven my point by stating that there are 4 cited statements in the NT and you are using 1 statement that has a very general understanding in our language and trying to contradict the 4 very specific NT statements with it.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Then, you take other parts of the bible (in Genesis and Exodus, regarding interactions with god, the father) and NOT take those specific verses literally. I would venture that you would take them literally if they weren't contradicted later, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. However, you have, so far, failed to indicate how one properly determines which parts of the bible are to be taken as literal truth in each sentence, and which parts are to be taken as generally correct, but off on details (due to writer embellishment or some other such issue). It's what you get from any Christian, because the bible is obviously bullshit. How do I know this? 

well let's take this part for a moment... I have tried to explain to you contextual clues... you seem to think you can read the Bible like a cook book... it's not that simple... we have to consider a few things;

1.  it's not written in English, polish, Italian or any other modern day language that it can easily be compared to

2.  it was written by many many different authors over a span of 1500 years or so and then compiled from fragments that have meticulously been reconstructed to as complete of a story as possible... To date, many modifications of understanding have been made due to new findings like the dead sea scrolls...

3.  The people of the times wrote very carefully what they knew and were only able to write what they observed or were told... this causes a discrepency in understanding like names of places and dates.  In visions of future events, they can only describe what they don't understand using examples of what they do understand, which today can confuse us as to what exactly they did see. 

Therefore we must take into consideration what the authors understanding of the situation was, when it was written, how the author came to the information and whether it is a conversational situation or a recap of an event already past.  This is how you discern from literal and embellishment or some other issue. 

now to get to your bullshit conspiracy.

Jabberwocky wrote:

It's very simple. There are two extremes of Christianity that I've been able to identify when it comes to interpreting the bible. One, which says that every single word is literally true, is describing literal history, and the entire book is infallible. AKA the young earth creationist. They are of course wrong, and even YOU would agree on that, because you seem to accept at least some scientific facts regarding the age of the earth and such. However, it's simple to dismiss them immediately, because even YOU would agree that the bible contradicts itself when taken this way (otherwise, this conversation would have been over a long time ago. You have conceded that author error is a possibility). The other extreme is someone who takes the gospels to be generally true, but dismisses virtually the entire old testament as allegory (think Kenneth Miller or Francis Collins). However, when you get someone from the latter category, they will NEVER in advance tell you how one can determine which parts of the bible are to be taken literally, and which ones aren't. The reason for that is because there is no such process. The closest you'll get is "what we know to be literally false is allegory, and the rest is literally true..."....until more is disproven. It's cognitive dissonance at its finest. I think that Collins and Miller are both brilliant in their disciplines of biology. Kenneth Miller is also a brilliant spokesman for methodological naturalism. It's refreshing to see that a Christian testified for the correct side in court when far intelectually inferior Christians wanted to use the school system to perpetuate absolute bullshit in science classes. Despite all that, and the fact that they probably think about hundreds of times more things about biology than I will ever know on a daily basis, I think that they're Christians either because of a fear of death, or some bizarre other mental glitch. As people who are methodological naturalists, I don't think that either of them would reasonable accept the challenge of determining the level of truth of any part of the bible, because they simply have a special box in their brain where the way they evaluate everything else in life just can't apply. That said, I wouldn't ever have that conversation with either of them unless they asked me, because I'm not an asshole. They're not on this forum. You are. 

Now while the view of a Kenneth Miller is more consistent with the real world than the view of a young earth creationist, the view of the YEC is far more theologically sound, as the very thought that Genesis is an allegory is absurd. The concept of original sin is a necessary doctrine for Christianity to be true in any meaningful sense. If Christianity is true, and Genesis was inspired by god, but an allegory, why in the fuck would a god do that, knowing that we would figure out our actual origins and question the crap out of it? It wouldn't be possible for a human to have written even a mildly accurate allegory without being inspired by god (since humans almost certainly predated communication complex enough to convey such concepts, and even if they didn't, with concise communication we suck at passing things down without writing them down). If a god inspired someone to write Genesis, why not give the actual story? Imagine if Genesis was a similar story theologically, but completely different (and more accurate) literally, and the more research we did regarding the origins of humans, other life, the earth, etc., the more we found Genesis 1-2 to be accurate over time. Imagine if the more historical records of ancient civilizations we find, the more accurate we find the rest of Genesis to be.

If that were the case, becoming a Christian (or at least converting to Judaism) would basically be a consequence of getting more educated. How come getting more educated seems to have an inverse correlation with (all) religiosity instead? It's as if the origin of all religions aren't based in any sense on reality. What a funny thing that is...

i find the contrary actually... What to you is 'more educated'?  is it just science, or the whole realm of all subjects including church history, languages, Bible compilation and exegesis, etc? 

I have found in my studies the basic consequence of getting more educated is ultimately discovering God... look at Einstein.  No He didnt believe in the Christian God, but ultiamtely believed that the universe is way too complicated to have happened by accident and that an impersonal God created it.  One of the most educated people in history and you claim that getting more educated seems to have an inverse correlation...

Though you are talking religiousity which is kind of a different matter than just believeing in a god. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

What I want from you here, is what I asserted that no Christian will ever do; explain how one properly determines what degree of truth lies in each part of the bible, and how we go about determining that. If you can do that concisely, you'll be the first person I've ever seen even attempt it.

pick a part.. a specific part.

Jabberwocky wrote:

You say that you will give specific reasoning, and even claim that you have regarding the face-to-face bit. I don't accept your argument. If a sentence that specific can be taken many different ways, then why don't the 4 verses in the NT I mentioned have that same problem? Why does the verse in Judges 13:22 implicitly state at least a one exception to this rule, when you claim that there are none? Basically, you are saying that a certain verse can be taken different ways. Even if I were to accept that, then why should I not accept that the 4 NT verses I cited can't also be taken in different ways? 

the NT statements are more specific and cannot in our language be understood any differently... The issue here is did Moses "see" God's face.... the NT says that no one can "see" God's face.  No matter how you want to take the NT statements, they're specifically talking about a visual encounter.  There's no way around it... NOw to have a face to face conversaton with someone, it is up for debate as to what that could actually mean... Ask someone in Biblical times, they would assume you met with that person and talked to them... odds are you looked at each other... however today we cannot assume that a face to face conversations are in person with the technology we have.  Though a face to face still could be assumed to be in person even though the same statement can apply to a Skype session.  Also, face to face means talking directly to another person... Talking, not seeing necessarily... if someone had a conversation in person with someone else, but constantly averted their eyes the whole time and never looked at the person they were talking to, would they then be lying to say they had a conversation face to face with someone?  It might be an awkward conversation, but any rational person would not call them a liar for claiming a face to face with that person.   The key visual word in the NT "see" determines the specifics of actually seeing, vs. the face to face in Exodus referring to how they met, not what they saw....  

and yes, if you want to nit-pic scripture that way, we do have to be that analytical about it.

I simply see you as looking for issues that you can't find and when the issues you bring up don't work in your favor, you get frustrated and try to claim the believer is in the wrong without a rational, non-bias review.  Despite your beliefs, I try to put mine aside here and look at what you're offering from a neutral standpoint... 

From that neutral standpoint, I really can't understand how the visual aspect of the conversation has any weight for either side in Exodus... it seems to be a weird place to debate the existence of a God or the validity of scripture.    yes I know you're claiming a contradiction, but to accurately do so, you would need to find statements that are congurently talking aobut the same thing, e.g. NT is talking about visual encounters whereas the Exodus verse is talking aobut the physical encounter... if both were specifying the visual, you would have a case.


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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

God stated this? So there are parts of the bible that are written by god, rather than inspired by him? How do you differentiate the two? How can you demonstrate that the verses that say that his face was seen were embellished by authors, but the verses that state it as impossible were god's actual words? 

By the key words, "God said" and implication of God speaking in a conversation... you know... the same cues we use when reading any story when people are talking. 

Where does it say, aside from Exodus 33:20 that god himself said any such thing? Find me the verse. You, yourself, have put the authenticity of the things said in Exodus 33 as subject to author error, so we can toss that out. And even if we didn't do that, you said

caposkia wrote:
God stated in many other parts that no one can see his face and survive

I wouldn't say that one time is *many other parts*. So if it has to be a "god said" verse for you to believe it that literally, then it's quite a problem when it says that someone did just that in the exact same chapter. You may wonder why I am not accepting your assertion that it doesn't mean that he saw god. The reason is that I do not accept your assertion that people averted their eyes is because I don't believe it says that ANYWHERE, and the entire concept of the ability for people to see god in the bible is inconsistent, no matter how many times you say that it isn't. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes I am. I am showing how you have made a judgement that god can not be seen, based on the bible. I am showing you that you are taking specific verses (the 4 cited in the new testament) that say that god's face can not be seen (at least not with the person surviving the ordeal) as 100% truth. This is what you state. I don't believe you have stated that you based your belief that god's face can't be seen on those 4 verses that I brought up, but they seem to be the strongest indicators in the bible that it's the case. If that's not where you got that from, please tell me specifically what gave you the idea that god's face can't be seen.

you said it... other places imply it as well be it that no one also claims to have ever seen the face of God.  I have made a deduction, not a judgement.... you are taking one speculative verse, one that is written in Hebrew using the context that Moses went up to have a personal conversation with God.... that would be the intention of hte statement.... and trying to say from that that Moses looked at Gods face....  You then claim above several other verses claiming that Gods face cannot be seen... one vs. several, what holds more water.

Also, is this really worth all this time?  really?  I must ask...  What does this do for your case?  I never claimed to know everything and if something is ponited out in scripture that contradicts my thinking or understanding, I will do my homework and correct my ways... my case is that the Bible is true... not necessarily everything I think is true... I hope what i think is true is congruent with the Bible... so far it seems so... but if I'm wrong here, what does that prove?  that I'm imperfect and may have misunderstood scripture?   happens all the time... however in this case, I think you've more than effectively proven my point by stating that there are 4 cited statements in the NT and you are using 1 statement that has a very general understanding in our language and trying to contradict the 4 very specific NT statements with it.  

Well, first of all, I brought up 2 statements during this thread (the one we've been discussing, and one in genesis regarding Jacob stating that he indeed did see the face of god and live, Gen 32:30). 

The main problem here is that you're saying that if you're wrong, then you're imperfect and may have misunderstood scripture. You have completely precluded the possibility that the inconsistencies are errors in scripture, rather than in your understanding. You have a priori eliminated any possibility that the bible is not a book containing facts (or truth, which ARE the same thing, something which Christians also try to deny). 

Now later, I cite a 3rd verse that makes this problem even worse. Let's see what happens!

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Then, you take other parts of the bible (in Genesis and Exodus, regarding interactions with god, the father) and NOT take those specific verses literally. I would venture that you would take them literally if they weren't contradicted later, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. However, you have, so far, failed to indicate how one properly determines which parts of the bible are to be taken as literal truth in each sentence, and which parts are to be taken as generally correct, but off on details (due to writer embellishment or some other such issue). It's what you get from any Christian, because the bible is obviously bullshit. How do I know this? 

well let's take this part for a moment... I have tried to explain to you contextual clues... you seem to think you can read the Bible like a cook book... it's not that simple... we have to consider a few things;

1.  it's not written in English, polish, Italian or any other modern day language that it can easily be compared to

2.  it was written by many many different authors over a span of 1500 years or so and then compiled from fragments that have meticulously been reconstructed to as complete of a story as possible... To date, many modifications of understanding have been made due to new findings like the dead sea scrolls...

3.  The people of the times wrote very carefully what they knew and were only able to write what they observed or were told... this causes a discrepency in understanding like names of places and dates.  In visions of future events, they can only describe what they don't understand using examples of what they do understand, which today can confuse us as to what exactly they did see. 

Therefore we must take into consideration what the authors understanding of the situation was, when it was written, how the author came to the information and whether it is a conversational situation or a recap of an event already past.  This is how you discern from literal and embellishment or some other issue. 

now to get to your bullshit conspiracy.

Hah! So all your points are reasons why things may be translated wrong, or written down incorrectly (for example, if I heard of an event that happened where I was sitting this moment that occurred in an aboriginal tribe 600 years ago involving the chief of the tribe, it would be inaccurate to say that it happened in Calgary and involved Chief Mayor Naheed Nenshi. That would just be inaccurate. If you can demonstrate to me that outside of the bible, people wrote history this way in that time and place, I will concede the argument. But you seem to have invented this standard yourself (or got it from some other equally deluded person and parroted it). I have NEVER heard of such a standard of writing, and simply will not accept this argument (your argument #3) until you show me that it was standard fare back then. #1 and #2 are just more lame attempts at trying to explain away inconsistencies (which don't actually make them go away, FYI). 

Ooh my conspiracy?? This should be fun. Did I imply a conspiracy?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

It's very simple. There are two extremes of Christianity that I've been able to identify when it comes to interpreting the bible. One, which says that every single word is literally true, is describing literal history, and the entire book is infallible. AKA the young earth creationist. They are of course wrong, and even YOU would agree on that, because you seem to accept at least some scientific facts regarding the age of the earth and such. However, it's simple to dismiss them immediately, because even YOU would agree that the bible contradicts itself when taken this way (otherwise, this conversation would have been over a long time ago. You have conceded that author error is a possibility). The other extreme is someone who takes the gospels to be generally true, but dismisses virtually the entire old testament as allegory (think Kenneth Miller or Francis Collins). However, when you get someone from the latter category, they will NEVER in advance tell you how one can determine which parts of the bible are to be taken literally, and which ones aren't. The reason for that is because there is no such process. The closest you'll get is "what we know to be literally false is allegory, and the rest is literally true..."....until more is disproven. It's cognitive dissonance at its finest. I think that Collins and Miller are both brilliant in their disciplines of biology. Kenneth Miller is also a brilliant spokesman for methodological naturalism. It's refreshing to see that a Christian testified for the correct side in court when far intelectually inferior Christians wanted to use the school system to perpetuate absolute bullshit in science classes. Despite all that, and the fact that they probably think about hundreds of times more things about biology than I will ever know on a daily basis, I think that they're Christians either because of a fear of death, or some bizarre other mental glitch. As people who are methodological naturalists, I don't think that either of them would reasonable accept the challenge of determining the level of truth of any part of the bible, because they simply have a special box in their brain where the way they evaluate everything else in life just can't apply. That said, I wouldn't ever have that conversation with either of them unless they asked me, because I'm not an asshole. They're not on this forum. You are. 

Now while the view of a Kenneth Miller is more consistent with the real world than the view of a young earth creationist, the view of the YEC is far more theologically sound, as the very thought that Genesis is an allegory is absurd. The concept of original sin is a necessary doctrine for Christianity to be true in any meaningful sense. If Christianity is true, and Genesis was inspired by god, but an allegory, why in the fuck would a god do that, knowing that we would figure out our actual origins and question the crap out of it? It wouldn't be possible for a human to have written even a mildly accurate allegory without being inspired by god (since humans almost certainly predated communication complex enough to convey such concepts, and even if they didn't, with concise communication we suck at passing things down without writing them down). If a god inspired someone to write Genesis, why not give the actual story? Imagine if Genesis was a similar story theologically, but completely different (and more accurate) literally, and the more research we did regarding the origins of humans, other life, the earth, etc., the more we found Genesis 1-2 to be accurate over time. Imagine if the more historical records of ancient civilizations we find, the more accurate we find the rest of Genesis to be.

If that were the case, becoming a Christian (or at least converting to Judaism) would basically be a consequence of getting more educated. How come getting more educated seems to have an inverse correlation with (all) religiosity instead? It's as if the origin of all religions aren't based in any sense on reality. What a funny thing that is...

i find the contrary actually... What to you is 'more educated'?  is it just science, or the whole realm of all subjects including church history, languages, Bible compilation and exegesis, etc? 

I have found in my studies the basic consequence of getting more educated is ultimately discovering God... look at Einstein.  No He didnt believe in the Christian God, but ultiamtely believed that the universe is way too complicated to have happened by accident and that an impersonal God created it.  One of the most educated people in history and you claim that getting more educated seems to have an inverse correlation...

Though you are talking religiousity which is kind of a different matter than just believeing in a god. 

You clearly aren't educated enough to draw that conclusion. I love how you cite subjects that only have to do with bible interpretation (while seemingly scoffing at me worrying about only science). It's not just science, but the bible makes claims that are in essence scientific, and in many cases they are demonstrably wrong. I mean, when it comes to languages, I only speak 2 fluently. However, in one case I went through over 40 English translations and a Polish one for good measure to check it. To say that it's untranslateable is not good enough. Language is simply a code we use to convey information to one another. So, in Polish, we don't have English articles like "a" and "the". They do not exist. Explaining these concepts to a native Polish speaker is difficult, and even many Polish people I know who have lived in Canada for decades make mistakes in that avenue sometimes. However, "the" and "a" are purely linguistic functions. They don't allow there to be some magical sentence in English that describes something untranslateable into Polish. It just means that translating isn't a word-for-word ordeal. So either the verse in Exodus 33:11 is badly translated in EVERY case, or it's translated correctly and disagrees with what you say. If you want to suggest that god's face wasn't seen there, then see Genesis 32:30 and the verse I mention below, which are more explicit regarding god's face. 

 

Also, funny you bring up Einstein. First of all, he was probably more of a pantheist. Can you find him professing a creator for the Universe? Until then, don't tell me that he believed in a creating god. Furthermore, Einstein died before the evidence for the big bang was what it is today. He even thought that some of his work was inaccurate, but was actually proved accurate when we discovered that the Universe was indeed expanding. 

Also, why bring up Einstein in the first place? I just finished telling you that people whose knowledge of biology dwarfs what mine ever will be are wrong on this topic. There are incredibly smart people who believe in a god, and incredibly smart people who don't. Clearly, the two things don't have to be connected (although statistically, higher education does correlate with lower religiosity). 

caposkia wrote:

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

What I want from you here, is what I asserted that no Christian will ever do; explain how one properly determines what degree of truth lies in each part of the bible, and how we go about determining that. If you can do that concisely, you'll be the first person I've ever seen even attempt it.

pick a part.. a specific part.

I'm not asking you to do this verse by verse. I'm asking you to explain a METHOD one can use to determine these things. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You say that you will give specific reasoning, and even claim that you have regarding the face-to-face bit. I don't accept your argument. If a sentence that specific can be taken many different ways, then why don't the 4 verses in the NT I mentioned have that same problem? Why does the verse in Judges 13:22 implicitly state at least a one exception to this rule, when you claim that there are none? Basically, you are saying that a certain verse can be taken different ways. Even if I were to accept that, then why should I not accept that the 4 NT verses I cited can't also be taken in different ways? 

the NT statements are more specific and cannot in our language be understood any differently... The issue here is did Moses "see" God's face.... the NT says that no one can "see" God's face.  No matter how you want to take the NT statements, they're specifically talking about a visual encounter.  There's no way around it... NOw to have a face to face conversaton with someone, it is up for debate as to what that could actually mean... Ask someone in Biblical times, they would assume you met with that person and talked to them... odds are you looked at each other... however today we cannot assume that a face to face conversations are in person with the technology we have.  Though a face to face still could be assumed to be in person even though the same statement can apply to a Skype session.  Also, face to face means talking directly to another person... Talking, not seeing necessarily... if someone had a conversation in person with someone else, but constantly averted their eyes the whole time and never looked at the person they were talking to, would they then be lying to say they had a conversation face to face with someone?  It might be an awkward conversation, but any rational person would not call them a liar for claiming a face to face with that person.   The key visual word in the NT "see" determines the specifics of actually seeing, vs. the face to face in Exodus referring to how they met, not what they saw....  

and yes, if you want to nit-pic scripture that way, we do have to be that analytical about it.

I simply see you as looking for issues that you can't find and when the issues you bring up don't work in your favor, you get frustrated and try to claim the believer is in the wrong without a rational, non-bias review.  Despite your beliefs, I try to put mine aside here and look at what you're offering from a neutral standpoint... 

From that neutral standpoint, I really can't understand how the visual aspect of the conversation has any weight for either side in Exodus... it seems to be a weird place to debate the existence of a God or the validity of scripture.    yes I know you're claiming a contradiction, but to accurately do so, you would need to find statements that are congurently talking aobut the same thing, e.g. NT is talking about visual encounters whereas the Exodus verse is talking aobut the physical encounter... if both were specifying the visual, you would have a case.

Hah...despite my beliefs. 

Now your bolded part...I cited a verse in the very post you quoted there! Judges 13:22. Above in this post, I also cited Genesis 32:30. Those 2 verses are more specific on that. The reason I cited Exodus 33 is that it seems to imply that the inability to see god's face was a NEW development. Regardless, the verses in Genesis and Judges do explicitly contradict it. So what's your explanation for those? 

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:Where does

Jabberwocky wrote:

Where does it say, aside from Exodus 33:20 that god himself said any such thing? Find me the verse. You, yourself, have put the authenticity of the things said in Exodus 33 as subject to author error, so we can toss that out. And even if we didn't do that, you said

caposkia wrote:
God stated in many other parts that no one can see his face and survive

unless it's quoted of course... that i figured was common sense.  So try again... 

And I should have said "it is stated"  Jn 1:18, Tim 6:16...  

Jabberwocky wrote:

I wouldn't say that one time is *many other parts*. So if it has to be a "god said" verse for you to believe it that literally, then it's quite a problem when it says that someone did just that in the exact same chapter. You may wonder why I am not accepting your assertion that it doesn't mean that he saw god. The reason is that I do not accept your assertion that people averted their eyes is because I don't believe it says that ANYWHERE, and the entire concept of the ability for people to see god in the bible is inconsistent, no matter how many times you say that it isn't. 

and so far you've failed to show me... so why not either show me or admit your starting to troll a bit.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well, first of all, I brought up 2 statements during this thread (the one we've been discussing, and one in genesis regarding Jacob stating that he indeed did see the face of god and live, Gen 32:30). 

The main problem here is that you're saying that if you're wrong, then you're imperfect and may have misunderstood scripture. You have completely precluded the possibility that the inconsistencies are errors in scripture, rather than in your understanding. You have a priori eliminated any possibility that the bible is not a book containing facts (or truth, which ARE the same thing, something which Christians also try to deny). 

Now later, I cite a 3rd verse that makes this problem even worse. Let's see what happens!

haven't found a problem yet except for your lack of effort to consider full context before jumping to conclusions... e.g. it is said in Gen 32:20 that Abram saw Gods face and survived... even though it is the same exact phrase that implies a meeting and does not necessarily imply seeing someone's face... The thing with that saying is that it was never intended to be used in a meeting with anyone else besides another human... so likely a face to face meeting would be visual as well as physical.  Gen 16:13 claims the same, that they saw God... yet in this case she saw an angel which is clear by context... It is generally understood that Abram saw Gods form and survived... without seeing His face.  Again, the point of the passages is that they had a special relationship with God that allowed them to meet with God unlike others are able to do... the point was not the visual encounter.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hah! So all your points are reasons why things may be translated wrong, or written down incorrectly (for example, if I heard of an event that happened where I was sitting this moment that occurred in an aboriginal tribe 600 years ago involving the chief of the tribe, it would be inaccurate to say that it happened in Calgary and involved Chief Mayor Naheed Nenshi. That would just be inaccurate. If you can demonstrate to me that outside of the bible, people wrote history this way in that time and place, I will concede the argument. But you seem to have invented this standard yourself (or got it from some other equally deluded person and parroted it). I have NEVER heard of such a standard of writing, and simply will not accept this argument (your argument #3) until you show me that it was standard fare back then. #1 and #2 are just more lame attempts at trying to explain away inconsistencies (which don't actually make them go away, FYI). 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/ebod03.htm

Jabberwocky wrote:

You clearly aren't educated enough to draw that conclusion. 

so then you should no longer talk to me.  To continue implies you think otherwise.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Also, funny you bring up Einstein. First of all, he was probably more of a pantheist. Can you find him professing a creator for the Universe? Until then, don't tell me that he believed in a creating god. Furthermore, Einstein died before the evidence for the big bang was what it is today. He even thought that some of his work was inaccurate, but was actually proved accurate when we discovered that the Universe was indeed expanding. 

Also, why bring up Einstein in the first place? I just finished telling you that people whose knowledge of biology dwarfs what mine ever will be are wrong on this topic. There are incredibly smart people who believe in a god, and incredibly smart people who don't. Clearly, the two things don't have to be connected (although statistically, higher education does correlate with lower religiosity). 

 


  1. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
  2. Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

2 of Albert Einstein's quotes on Spirituality... bing searched.

I mean can you really reread your post above and not see a desperate search for excuses in it?

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

What I want from you here, is what I asserted that no Christian will ever do; explain how one properly determines what degree of truth lies in each part of the bible, and how we go about determining that. If you can do that concisely, you'll be the first person I've ever seen even attempt it.

caposkia wrote:

pick a part.. a specific part.

I'm not asking you to do this verse by verse. I'm asking you to explain a METHOD one can use to determine these things. 

Read the context, use a more literal Bible translation, parse and compare with the languages if you want to get extremely technical (as it seems you do), study the culture of the time and the perspective/person of the Author to determine ability to comprehend the particular verses in question, pray about your comprehension of what is read.... and you should be good to go.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hah...despite my beliefs. 

Now your bolded part...I cited a verse in the very post you quoted there! Judges 13:22. Above in this post, I also cited Genesis 32:30. Those 2 verses are more specific on that. The reason I cited Exodus 33 is that it seems to imply that the inability to see god's face was a NEW development. Regardless, the verses in Genesis and Judges do explicitly contradict it. So what's your explanation for those? 

Genesis 16 shows the belief before that time was that you could not see God and survive.  

Judges 13 the context shows that only an Angel of God came to them... Gen 32:30 explained above, neither contradict it.  


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to summarize most

I'm going to summarize most of my response at the end, as we both have sort of fractured this post into several parts, even though we seem to be discussing just one topic right now (can god be seen?) except where that's not necessarily the topic. As usual, most of what you said was bullshit. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Where does it say, aside from Exodus 33:20 that god himself said any such thing? Find me the verse. You, yourself, have put the authenticity of the things said in Exodus 33 as subject to author error, so we can toss that out. And even if we didn't do that, you said

caposkia wrote:
God stated in many other parts that no one can see his face and survive

unless it's quoted of course... that i figured was common sense.  So try again... 

Why would it be common sense? If someone can make a mistake writing the thing, for what reason do they suddenly become infallible when quoting god? They can be just as mistaken when allegedly quoting god. 

caposkia wrote:

And I should have said "it is stated"  Jn 1:18, Tim 6:16...  

I asked you when the bible said that god stated such, not where it is stated. God was not the one quoted in those 2 verses. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I wouldn't say that one time is *many other parts*. So if it has to be a "god said" verse for you to believe it that literally, then it's quite a problem when it says that someone did just that in the exact same chapter. You may wonder why I am not accepting your assertion that it doesn't mean that he saw god. The reason is that I do not accept your assertion that people averted their eyes is because I don't believe it says that ANYWHERE, and the entire concept of the ability for people to see god in the bible is inconsistent, no matter how many times you say that it isn't. 

and so far you've failed to show me... so why not either show me or admit your starting to troll a bit.

I will, below. How is what I'm doing trolling in any way, shape, or form?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well, first of all, I brought up 2 statements during this thread (the one we've been discussing, and one in genesis regarding Jacob stating that he indeed did see the face of god and live, Gen 32:30). 

The main problem here is that you're saying that if you're wrong, then you're imperfect and may have misunderstood scripture. You have completely precluded the possibility that the inconsistencies are errors in scripture, rather than in your understanding. You have a priori eliminated any possibility that the bible is not a book containing facts (or truth, which ARE the same thing, something which Christians also try to deny). 

Now later, I cite a 3rd verse that makes this problem even worse. Let's see what happens!

haven't found a problem yet except for your lack of effort to consider full context before jumping to conclusions... e.g. it is said in Gen 32:20 that Abram saw Gods face and survived... even though it is the same exact phrase that implies a meeting and does not necessarily imply seeing someone's face... The thing with that saying is that it was never intended to be used in a meeting with anyone else besides another human... so likely a face to face meeting would be visual as well as physical.  Gen 16:13 claims the same, that they saw God... yet in this case she saw an angel which is clear by context... It is generally understood that Abram saw Gods form and survived... without seeing His face.  Again, the point of the passages is that they had a special relationship with God that allowed them to meet with God unlike others are able to do... the point was not the visual encounter.  

It was Jacob not Abram being referred to. 

Yes, I agree regarding the context in Gen. 16:13, because it quite clearly says "The angel of the lord". This is why I didn't bring that one up. 

You seem to imply that the verses that say that god was seen actually don't mean that he was seen, but people had an "audience" with god, without being allowed to look at him. However, the language was concise enough to be able to convey that. Indeed during the destruction of Sodom, Lot was instructed not to look into the destruction (and upon his wife doing just that, she was transformed into a pillar of salt, which is a completely sensible and not fucking random thing whatsoever). The point is, all references to god not being able to be seen EVER (with 0 exceptions) occur in the new testament. Exodus 33:20 clearly implies that god can no longer be seen. Judges 13:22 implies that someone did see god, but another exception was made. If you're not going to agree that this is what it says, then we're done. You simply refuse to admit that your book contains internal inconsistencies. I'm ok with that. Luckily, you're absolutely insane enough that you'll convince nobody else but the equally insane that your position is coherent in any way shape or form. Not much else needs to be said. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hah! So all your points are reasons why things may be translated wrong, or written down incorrectly (for example, if I heard of an event that happened where I was sitting this moment that occurred in an aboriginal tribe 600 years ago involving the chief of the tribe, it would be inaccurate to say that it happened in Calgary and involved Chief Mayor Naheed Nenshi. That would just be inaccurate. If you can demonstrate to me that outside of the bible, people wrote history this way in that time and place, I will concede the argument. But you seem to have invented this standard yourself (or got it from some other equally deluded person and parroted it). I have NEVER heard of such a standard of writing, and simply will not accept this argument (your argument #3) until you show me that it was standard fare back then. #1 and #2 are just more lame attempts at trying to explain away inconsistencies (which don't actually make them go away, FYI). 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/ebod03.htm

I'm not going to bother to read that whole effing thing. We both have commented on how long these posts take to read, and reply to. So if you've done the research, perhaps quote the relevant part. I did search some keywords though, and was unable to find what I was looking for. 

Furthermore, even if it said any such thing, then all you have done was show that this was standard fare for the book of the dead, not the bible. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You clearly aren't educated enough to draw that conclusion. 

so then you should no longer talk to me.  To continue implies you think otherwise.  

No. It just implies that I'm bored as I've said. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Also, funny you bring up Einstein. First of all, he was probably more of a pantheist. Can you find him professing a creator for the Universe? Until then, don't tell me that he believed in a creating god. Furthermore, Einstein died before the evidence for the big bang was what it is today. He even thought that some of his work was inaccurate, but was actually proved accurate when we discovered that the Universe was indeed expanding. 

Also, why bring up Einstein in the first place? I just finished telling you that people whose knowledge of biology dwarfs what mine ever will be are wrong on this topic. There are incredibly smart people who believe in a god, and incredibly smart people who don't. Clearly, the two things don't have to be connected (although statistically, higher education does correlate with lower religiosity). 

 


  1. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
  2. Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

2 of Albert Einstein's quotes on Spirituality... bing searched.

I mean can you really reread your post above and not see a desperate search for excuses in it?

On the first one, I said professing, not merely suggesting. He used words like "god" and "religion" to mean very different things than you do. This may seem like a cop-out, but it's hardly one if you actually read all of Einstein's commentary on the topic, not just the verses that, in a vacuum, support your personal belief. Just like with the issue of god's ability to be seen, you are quote mining. You are personally deciding which words spoken, or written, by a certain person, or in a certain book, are the ones that are true, and merely dismissing the rest. I can easily find an Einstein quote that says the following:

AlbertEinstein!! wrote:

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church... As long as I can remember. I have resented mass indoctrination. I cannot prove to you there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws"

Immutable laws...I think that says it all. Einstein was indeed a complex man. However, I'm not quite done yet. 

Read the second one in context:

Quote:

“Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.  But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

He is basically saying that science is the method by which we determine truth, whereas religion is the impulse by which we are driven to seek it. There is virtually no other way to interpret this. That is why science without religion is lame; there is no reason to do science without a quest for truth. The reason that religion without science is blind, is because it is a search for truth without a proper method to determine it. That's how you come to incorrect conclusions. As you clearly have. I agree with his sentiment, but for me, the word religion is typically not used in nearly as poetic or dignified way as Einstein uses it in this excerpt. It is very clear in this quote what Einstein means, and it's not what you wish he meant. Also, can YOU re-read my post above An argument from authority is not an argument at all. You are absolutely pathetic that you feel better because you think Einstein agrees with you. Whatever helps you sleep at night. 

caposkia wrote:

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

What I want from you here, is what I asserted that no Christian will ever do; explain how one properly determines what degree of truth lies in each part of the bible, and how we go about determining that. If you can do that concisely, you'll be the first person I've ever seen even attempt it.

caposkia wrote:

pick a part.. a specific part.

I'm not asking you to do this verse by verse. I'm asking you to explain a METHOD one can use to determine these things. 

Read the context, use a more literal Bible translation, parse and compare with the languages if you want to get extremely technical (as it seems you do), study the culture of the time and the perspective/person of the Author to determine ability to comprehend the particular verses in question, pray about your comprehension of what is read.... and you should be good to go.  

I used up to 48 different ones at times in these discussions. I've put in my homework here, trust me. The "Author"? With a capital A? Pray about my comprehension? To do either of those things I would have to believe in god to begin with. I've already tried that method earlier in life. Didn't work. You are quite literally saying that the way to understand what parts of the bible are true, and what parts aren't, and why it's ok that many parts aren't, you simply have to believe. So, in short, put your fingers in your ears and sing "LALALALALALAGODLALA" until your brain begins effectively blocking any attempt at reasonable discourse that can possibly shake your belief in god almighty! I, unfortunately for you, do not have the ability to deliberately contradict my mental faculties in that way, and short of a form of dementia or a brain injury, I never will. 

I asked you for a method. You basically just told me to take your word for it (by method of believing in god in advance, which then will convince you "Hey! These obvious contradictions CAN work together!". I'm not one who thinks that every religious person is insane. I think many are really stupid (young earth creationists) and sometimes it's not their fault. I think that the more intelligent ones have emotional reasons to believe, and typically won't go so far as to discuss it in depth, because even they know deep down that there's some level of bullshit to it, but they want to remain in their state of wishful thinking. I don't recommend that, but to each their own. You are actually insane it seems. This is a level of cognitive dissonance I didn't think was possible at all. Congratulations. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hah...despite my beliefs. 

Now your bolded part...I cited a verse in the very post you quoted there! Judges 13:22. Above in this post, I also cited Genesis 32:30. Those 2 verses are more specific on that. The reason I cited Exodus 33 is that it seems to imply that the inability to see god's face was a NEW development. Regardless, the verses in Genesis and Judges do explicitly contradict it. So what's your explanation for those? 

Genesis 16 shows the belief before that time was that you could not see God and survive.  

Judges 13 the context shows that only an Angel of God came to them... Gen 32:30 explained above, neither contradict it.  

Where in judges does it fucking say that?? What about that chapter implies that it was an angel?

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.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:
caposkia wrote:
...pray about your comprehension of what is read.... and you should be good to go.
Jabberwocky wrote:
What I want from you here, is what I asserted that no Christian will ever do; explain how one properly determines what degree of truth lies in each part of the bible, and how we go about determining that. If you can do that concisely, you'll be the first person I've ever seen even attempt it.
... Pray about my comprehension? To do either of those things I would have to believe in god to begin with....
Reminds me of a conversation I had with Mormon missionaries once.  I asked them about the court documents confirming that Joseph Smith was a convicted fraud.  One of them responded, "When I hear things like that,  I just pray..."

"Pray" = Assume your conclusion, then ruminate until you come up with something that supports it.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


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

zarathustra wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
caposkia wrote:
...pray about your comprehension of what is read.... and you should be good to go.
Jabberwocky wrote:
What I want from you here, is what I asserted that no Christian will ever do; explain how one properly determines what degree of truth lies in each part of the bible, and how we go about determining that. If you can do that concisely, you'll be the first person I've ever seen even attempt it.
... Pray about my comprehension? To do either of those things I would have to believe in god to begin with....
Reminds me of a conversation I had with Mormon missionaries once.  I asked them about the court documents confirming that Joseph Smith was a convicted fraud.  One of them responded, "When I hear things like that,  I just pray..."

"Pray" = Assume your conclusion, then ruminate until you come up with something that supports it.

Yep, basically. Ken Ham said it nicely in his debate with Bill Nye.

We have the same observational science: I reject the distinction between types of science, but I know what he's trying to imply, so for the sake of argument, I'll accept his terms. He's MOSTLY correct, but not completely. I'll discuss why shortly. 

We have different historical science: True.

We have different historical science due to a difference in starting point: True

The creationist starting point is the bible and god: True

The evolutionist (real terms include "rationalist" "secular human" "not a fucking moron" "methodological naturalist" "any naturalist"...) starting point is millions of years and evolution:...NO! Our starting point is now. It can't be anything BUT now. The reason that there is no difference between "observational science" and historical science, is because we observe what's in the present to deduce what's in the past, rather than observing what's in the present to attempt to explain what we already proclaimed happened in the past. 

 

It's what religious people MUST do, because there is no way to observe the present, and deduce religion from it. It's impossible in every way. When I was new at listening to the arguments (about the time I signed up to this forum), I wasn't swayed by the arguments of someone like William Lane Craig, but I would be lying if I said that it didn't seem like he won every debate he ever entered. The reason is that he is good at debating. He is good at covertly and convincingly spouting good logical fallacies. Once I realized what they were and realized he was actually quite full of shit, well it helped a lot. He likes to discuss physics a lot, but when he goes up against a physicist, he invariably gets thrashed. Furthermore, his debate with Hitchens, while I felt he did well for someone less versed in such a debate overall, to even a newcomer to that arena, he got slaughtered in the question period. 

One thing I did to train my mind early on was to listen to the Christopher Vs. Peter Hitchens debate. Then, listen to it again, but write down what Peter actually said word for word, and read it a few months later (without the trademark Hitchens voice and accent to sway my mind into thinking it was convincing by virtue of HOW it was said). It's amazing how someone can speak such nonsense, but still sound right because of the choice and words, and their delivery. It helped train me to listen to the content over the presentation. Having been raised in a church family (and living in a city with quite a charismatic bishop for the last 17 years), it certainly is something everyone should learn I feel. 

 

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:Why would

Jabberwocky wrote:

Why would it be common sense? If someone can make a mistake writing the thing, for what reason do they suddenly become infallible when quoting god? They can be just as mistaken when allegedly quoting god. 

just like writing today, you can't "legally anyway" falsely quote someone or change the wording when quoting someone.... back then the same rules applied... they would either say this person said something like... or named person said... quote...  Common rules of writing here.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I will, below. How is what I'm doing trolling in any way, shape, or form?

you ignore the conversation and cry bullshit whenever you have nothing to say.  IN other words, instead of trying to resolve the conversation on either end, you try to keep it circular.

Jabberwocky wrote:

It was Jacob not Abram being referred to. 

sorry for misquoting

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, I agree regarding the context in Gen. 16:13, because it quite clearly says "The angel of the lord". This is why I didn't bring that one up. 

yet it says the exact same thing... so why would the other passage be different?  is it only because it didn't mention an angel there or specific form?

Jabberwocky wrote:

You seem to imply that the verses that say that god was seen actually don't mean that he was seen, but people had an "audience" with god, without being allowed to look at him. However, the language was concise enough to be able to convey that. Indeed during the destruction of Sodom, Lot was instructed not to look into the destruction (and upon his wife doing just that, she was transformed into a pillar of salt, which is a completely sensible and not fucking random thing whatsoever). The point is, all references to god not being able to be seen EVER (with 0 exceptions) occur in the new testament. Exodus 33:20 clearly implies that god can no longer be seen. Judges 13:22 implies that someone did see god, but another exception was made. If you're not going to agree that this is what it says, then we're done. You simply refuse to admit that your book contains internal inconsistencies. I'm ok with that. Luckily, you're absolutely insane enough that you'll convince nobody else but the equally insane that your position is coherent in any way shape or form. Not much else needs to be said. 

The NT was written by people who understood the rules of the OT...  why would that perception all of a sudden change?

Ex. 33:20 does not say or imply contextually anywhere (unless you can explain your reasoning) that it "no longer happens"... rather it specifically says "no man can see me and live"  It is a present participle inidicating a timeless statement...  Just like the "I AM" is the same participle in Hebrew... I AM means He was always and will always be the same God and is eternal.  We don't have such tense in English, so it's hard to explain to those who don't know the languages.  

all in all, per your statement that If i'm not going to agree, we're done, I guess we're done.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm not going to bother to read that whole effing thing. We both have commented on how long these posts take to read, and reply to. So if you've done the research, perhaps quote the relevant part. I did search some keywords though, and was unable to find what I was looking for. 

Furthermore, even if it said any such thing, then all you have done was show that this was standard fare for the book of the dead, not the bible.

so in other words, don't waste my time trying to find something specific for you because it won't matter anyway despite the point that you made in the prior post that you simply wanted proof outside the Bible that this occurs........ got it.

Jabberwocky wrote:

On the first one, I said professing, not merely suggesting. He used words like "god" and "religion" to mean very different things than you do. This may seem like a cop-out, but it's hardly one if you actually read all of Einstein's commentary on the topic, not just the verses that, in a vacuum, support your personal belief. Just like with the issue of god's ability to be seen, you are quote mining. You are personally deciding which words spoken, or written, by a certain person, or in a certain book, are the ones that are true, and merely dismissing the rest. I can easily find an Einstein quote that says the following:

AlbertEinstein!! wrote:

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church... As long as I can remember. I have resented mass indoctrination. I cannot prove to you there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws"

Immutable laws...I think that says it all. Einstein was indeed a complex man. However, I'm not quite done yet. 

Read the second one in context:

Quote:

“Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.  But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

He is basically saying that science is the method by which we determine truth, whereas religion is the impulse by which we are driven to seek it. There is virtually no other way to interpret this. That is why science without religion is lame; there is no reason to do science without a quest for truth. The reason that religion without science is blind, is because it is a search for truth without a proper method to determine it. That's how you come to incorrect conclusions. As you clearly have. I agree with his sentiment, but for me, the word religion is typically not used in nearly as poetic or dignified way as Einstein uses it in this excerpt. It is very clear in this quote what Einstein means, and it's not what you wish he meant. Also, can YOU re-read my post above An argument from authority is not an argument at all. You are absolutely pathetic that you feel better because you think Einstein agrees with you. Whatever helps you sleep at night. 

it's exactly what I hoped he meant... I know Einstein doesn't buy into the "personal God" of the Churches idea... I thought that was kind of a given from what I had said earlier, sorry I wasn't as clear on that... my point is that Einstein can't see a universe without a creator behind it... it has nothing to do with religion... which despite your beliefs about me are more congruent with my perspective of religion and is a point that the universe has more to it than science by itself can comprehend... at least at this point in time.  

Going to the first quote, did you notice it was church focused and not God focused?  it simply stated he didn't accept the "PErsonal" god, not that a god couldn't exist or that he even believed so. 

A direct quote from Einstein professing what HE does believe:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Spinoza's God though much more in depth than a single statement buys into the idea that thought is a substance in the universe that contributed to the construction of the universe.   It is understood to have a thought process as to which only a living being can have, but so big that it doesn't concern itself with the matters of humanity.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I used up to 48 different ones at times in these discussions. I've put in my homework here, trust me. The "Author"? With a capital A? Pray about my comprehension? To do either of those things I would have to believe in god to begin with. I've already tried that method earlier in life. Didn't work. You are quite literally saying that the way to understand what parts of the bible are true, and what parts aren't, and why it's ok that many parts aren't, you simply have to believe. So, in short, put your fingers in your ears and sing "LALALALALALAGODLALA" until your brain begins effectively blocking any attempt at reasonable discourse that can possibly shake your belief in god almighty! I, unfortunately for you, do not have the ability to deliberately contradict my mental faculties in that way, and short of a form of dementia or a brain injury, I never will. 

I asked you for a method. You basically just told me to take your word for it (by method of believing in god in advance, which then will convince you "Hey! These obvious contradictions CAN work together!". I'm not one who thinks that every religious person is insane. I think many are really stupid (young earth creationists) and sometimes it's not their fault. I think that the more intelligent ones have emotional reasons to believe, and typically won't go so far as to discuss it in depth, because even they know deep down that there's some level of bullshit to it, but they want to remain in their state of wishful thinking. I don't recommend that, but to each their own. You are actually insane it seems. This is a level of cognitive dissonance I didn't think was possible at all. Congratulations. 

contrary to your belief... I want you to go into the Bible as a non-believer... pray?  you don't need to believe in God to pray, but if you're reading scripture you must be trying to comprehend its reality in life unless you're just looking for a good story... most people looking for that type of entertainment don't turn to the Bible.... If you're trying to comprehend its reality in history then you must be also seeking the possibility of this God that doesn't exist in your mind... if you pray, what are you going to lose but a minute of your day if there is no God... if there is a God and you pray, what are you going to gain from praying? 

many people have gone into the Bible bent on being the one to ultimately prove its insanity to the world.   many of them came out of that believers.  I dare you to honestly try it.  But remember, don't stop thinking.  When one stops thinking, they get stuck in their own personal reality like those in your second paragraph. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Where in judges does it fucking say that?? What about that chapter implies that it was an angel?

really??? it's not that long of a chapter... and context applies so it might not hurt to read the whole thing... only 25 verses.  To help you out with this tedious task;

verse 3 mentions an angel

verse 6 mentions a man of God

vs. 8, man of God

vs. 9 Angel is mentioned again

vs 10, man of God

vs.  11, man...

vs. 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, etc.....

then in vs. 22 it says; "...We will surely die for we have seen God"

Do you see why I just gave you the chapter??? i mean if you just read even the first few verses you would have had your answer


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

zarathustra wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
caposkia wrote:
...pray about your comprehension of what is read.... and you should be good to go.
Jabberwocky wrote:
What I want from you here, is what I asserted that no Christian will ever do; explain how one properly determines what degree of truth lies in each part of the bible, and how we go about determining that. If you can do that concisely, you'll be the first person I've ever seen even attempt it.
... Pray about my comprehension? To do either of those things I would have to believe in god to begin with....
Reminds me of a conversation I had with Mormon missionaries once.  I asked them about the court documents confirming that Joseph Smith was a convicted fraud.  One of them responded, "When I hear things like that,  I just pray..."

"Pray" = Assume your conclusion, then ruminate until you come up with something that supports it.

it it requires a rational thought to honestly pray... hmm.... most people who say what you said above aren't praying with rational thought, they're praying for their own rationality and hope that that single effort justifies their perspective....

Such a scary thing to offer to someone isn't it... otherwise, why such opposition to it?

[/qutoe]


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
caposkia wrote:
...pray about your comprehension of what is read.... and you should be good to go.
Jabberwocky wrote:
What I want from you here, is what I asserted that no Christian will ever do; explain how one properly determines what degree of truth lies in each part of the bible, and how we go about determining that. If you can do that concisely, you'll be the first person I've ever seen even attempt it.
... Pray about my comprehension? To do either of those things I would have to believe in god to begin with....
Reminds me of a conversation I had with Mormon missionaries once.  I asked them about the court documents confirming that Joseph Smith was a convicted fraud.  One of them responded, "When I hear things like that,  I just pray..."

"Pray" = Assume your conclusion, then ruminate until you come up with something that supports it.

Yep, basically. Ken Ham said it nicely in his debate with Bill Nye.

We have the same observational science: I reject the distinction between types of science, but I know what he's trying to imply, so for the sake of argument, I'll accept his terms. He's MOSTLY correct, but not completely. I'll discuss why shortly. 

We have different historical science: True.

We have different historical science due to a difference in starting point: True

The creationist starting point is the bible and god: True

The evolutionist (real terms include "rationalist" "secular human" "not a fucking moron" "methodological naturalist" "any naturalist"...) starting point is millions of years and evolution:...NO! Our starting point is now. It can't be anything BUT now. The reason that there is no difference between "observational science" and historical science, is because we observe what's in the present to deduce what's in the past, rather than observing what's in the present to attempt to explain what we already proclaimed happened in the past. 

 

It's what religious people MUST do, because there is no way to observe the present, and deduce religion from it. It's impossible in every way. When I was new at listening to the arguments (about the time I signed up to this forum), I wasn't swayed by the arguments of someone like William Lane Craig, but I would be lying if I said that it didn't seem like he won every debate he ever entered. The reason is that he is good at debating. He is good at covertly and convincingly spouting good logical fallacies. Once I realized what they were and realized he was actually quite full of shit, well it helped a lot. He likes to discuss physics a lot, but when he goes up against a physicist, he invariably gets thrashed. Furthermore, his debate with Hitchens, while I felt he did well for someone less versed in such a debate overall, to even a newcomer to that arena, he got slaughtered in the question period. 

One thing I did to train my mind early on was to listen to the Christopher Vs. Peter Hitchens debate. Then, listen to it again, but write down what Peter actually said word for word, and read it a few months later (without the trademark Hitchens voice and accent to sway my mind into thinking it was convincing by virtue of HOW it was said). It's amazing how someone can speak such nonsense, but still sound right because of the choice and words, and their delivery. It helped train me to listen to the content over the presentation. Having been raised in a church family (and living in a city with quite a charismatic bishop for the last 17 years), it certainly is something everyone should learn I feel. 

 

YOu all act like my request for someone to pray is a means of mind control... how do you rationally explain that when it's something you're suppose to do on your own quietly?  The only explanation I can think of is if there is a God, the prayer might sway your thought process... if there is no God, the prayer is going to do nothing less than a moment of meditation would do for you. 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:zarathustra

caposkia wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
"Pray" = Assume your conclusion, then ruminate until you come up with something that supports it.

it it requires a rational thought to honestly pray... hmm.... most people who say what you said above aren't praying with rational thought, they're praying for their own rationality and hope that that single effort justifies their perspective....

Such a scary thing to offer to someone isn't it... otherwise, why such opposition to it?

I'm not sure "praying with rational thought" is consistent.  Unless you've proven god exists, praying presupposes the existence of a god that can hear your prayers.  

 

And presupposition isn't rational. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Why would it be common sense? If someone can make a mistake writing the thing, for what reason do they suddenly become infallible when quoting god? They can be just as mistaken when allegedly quoting god. 

just like writing today, you can't "legally anyway" falsely quote someone or change the wording when quoting someone.... back then the same rules applied... they would either say this person said something like... or named person said... quote...  Common rules of writing here.

Hahahaha. Yeah, because the bible was checked for slander by the authorities. Give me a break! You actually think that it's impossible for someone to have put words in god's mouth in a book? You can't honestly be serious. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I will, below. How is what I'm doing trolling in any way, shape, or form?

you ignore the conversation and cry bullshit whenever you have nothing to say.  IN other words, instead of trying to resolve the conversation on either end, you try to keep it circular.

I don't try to keep it circular. I am simply bringing back points that you are evading, because you are....evading points!

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

It was Jacob not Abram being referred to. 

sorry for misquoting

It happens, as I did a similar thing below as well. That said it's important to have the stories straight.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, I agree regarding the context in Gen. 16:13, because it quite clearly says "The angel of the lord". This is why I didn't bring that one up. 

yet it says the exact same thing... so why would the other passage be different?  is it only because it didn't mention an angel there or specific form?

I concede the point in Judges as well that it mentions angels. I was really exhausted writing that. Combing through bible verses is tiring, although I don't recall seeing angels at first reading, I'm not entirely sure what translation I was reading. Either way, why be worried that they saw god and it was deadly if it was angels rather than god? These people expressed knowledge at such a rule (whereas previous people like Jacob and Abram seemed not to acknowldge any such rule). 

However, in Genesis 16 it says the Angel of the lord, but it doesn't say that in Genesis 17 or 18. The entire point is that it is inconsistent. You claim some sort of contextual feature I'm missing. However, while maybe they simply got tired of writing "the angel of the lord", there are multiple times where people are said to have seen god face to face, talked to him face to face, the lord appearing unto people and saying stuff to them, to me that is a clear indication that the book claims that these people saw god, and only later says that such a thing is impossible. We're not going to agree on this point because you have a priori decided that the bible is both true and inerrant (while being inconsistent and saying that there are errors or misunderstandings of "scale", and allowing for writer error). This position is inconsistent and not worth arguing with. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You seem to imply that the verses that say that god was seen actually don't mean that he was seen, but people had an "audience" with god, without being allowed to look at him. However, the language was concise enough to be able to convey that. Indeed during the destruction of Sodom, Lot was instructed not to look into the destruction (and upon his wife doing just that, she was transformed into a pillar of salt, which is a completely sensible and not fucking random thing whatsoever). The point is, all references to god not being able to be seen EVER (with 0 exceptions) occur in the new testament. Exodus 33:20 clearly implies that god can no longer be seen. Judges 13:22 implies that someone did see god, but another exception was made. If you're not going to agree that this is what it says, then we're done. You simply refuse to admit that your book contains internal inconsistencies. I'm ok with that. Luckily, you're absolutely insane enough that you'll convince nobody else but the equally insane that your position is coherent in any way shape or form. Not much else needs to be said. 

The NT was written by people who understood the rules of the OT...  why would that perception all of a sudden change?

Ex. 33:20 does not say or imply contextually anywhere (unless you can explain your reasoning) that it "no longer happens"... rather it specifically says "no man can see me and live"  It is a present participle inidicating a timeless statement...  Just like the "I AM" is the same participle in Hebrew... I AM means He was always and will always be the same God and is eternal.  We don't have such tense in English, so it's hard to explain to those who don't know the languages.  

all in all, per your statement that If i'm not going to agree, we're done, I guess we're done.

Is that what that tense means? Some sort of eternal tense that doesn't exist in English? Even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that we can't describe it even if it requires more words. 

The point is that there are verses that imply god was seen. There are others that imply that he sent a different manifestation (like an angel). There are others that say specifically that his face was seen, by some significant old testament figures like Moses and Jacob. You simply pass those off as misinterpretation or a witness assuming what Moses saw. I reject your arguments because you're wholly inconsistent in your viewing of the bible. You claim that some parts are definitely true (such as trusting anyone quoting god as having said something) but then pass off things like this because it's convenient to do so (and necessary to avoid contradictions). Can you name parts of the bible you believe such a mistake applies to (the witness made assumptions) that are not contradicted by history, science, or other parts of the bible? If so, why? If not, then it makes it seem like your criteria is "It's true until proven otherwise" which is of course the wrong way to think about anything. 

capoksia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm not going to bother to read that whole effing thing. We both have commented on how long these posts take to read, and reply to. So if you've done the research, perhaps quote the relevant part. I did search some keywords though, and was unable to find what I was looking for. 

Furthermore, even if it said any such thing, then all you have done was show that this was standard fare for the book of the dead, not the bible.

so in other words, don't waste my time trying to find something specific for you because it won't matter anyway despite the point that you made in the prior post that you simply wanted proof outside the Bible that this occurs........ got it.

No. You rarely ever even go so far as to post a link justifying anything you say. Whenever you do, it's an essay. What I do my best to do is quote the relevant part, and then put the link in at the end to allow you to check it (and since I quote a chunk, you can use your browser's "find" function to easily make sure I didn't make it up). I might read that yet, but not tonight. Also, as I said, even if your claim is corroborated in there that some writings did that, is there also a suggestion there that it would apply to the bible? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

On the first one, I said professing, not merely suggesting. He used words like "god" and "religion" to mean very different things than you do. This may seem like a cop-out, but it's hardly one if you actually read all of Einstein's commentary on the topic, not just the verses that, in a vacuum, support your personal belief. Just like with the issue of god's ability to be seen, you are quote mining. You are personally deciding which words spoken, or written, by a certain person, or in a certain book, are the ones that are true, and merely dismissing the rest. I can easily find an Einstein quote that says the following:

AlbertEinstein!! wrote:

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church... As long as I can remember. I have resented mass indoctrination. I cannot prove to you there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws"

Immutable laws...I think that says it all. Einstein was indeed a complex man. However, I'm not quite done yet. 

Read the second one in context:

Quote:

“Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.  But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

He is basically saying that science is the method by which we determine truth, whereas religion is the impulse by which we are driven to seek it. There is virtually no other way to interpret this. That is why science without religion is lame; there is no reason to do science without a quest for truth. The reason that religion without science is blind, is because it is a search for truth without a proper method to determine it. That's how you come to incorrect conclusions. As you clearly have. I agree with his sentiment, but for me, the word religion is typically not used in nearly as poetic or dignified way as Einstein uses it in this excerpt. It is very clear in this quote what Einstein means, and it's not what you wish he meant. Also, can YOU re-read my post above An argument from authority is not an argument at all. You are absolutely pathetic that you feel better because you think Einstein agrees with you. Whatever helps you sleep at night. 

it's exactly what I hoped he meant... I know Einstein doesn't buy into the "personal God" of the Churches idea... I thought that was kind of a given from what I had said earlier, sorry I wasn't as clear on that... my point is that Einstein can't see a universe without a creator behind it... it has nothing to do with religion... which despite your beliefs about me are more congruent with my perspective of religion and is a point that the universe has more to it than science by itself can comprehend... at least at this point in time.  

Going to the first quote, did you notice it was church focused and not God focused?  it simply stated he didn't accept the "PErsonal" god, not that a god couldn't exist or that he even believed so. 

A direct quote from Einstein professing what HE does believe:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Spinoza's God though much more in depth than a single statement buys into the idea that thought is a substance in the universe that contributed to the construction of the universe.   It is understood to have a thought process as to which only a living being can have, but so big that it doesn't concern itself with the matters of humanity.

There you go. So can you provide me with something specific that separates Spinoza's god from Pantheism? I don't know about you, but I don't personally count Pantheism as theism (despite the name) because it simply says that everything is god in a way. But we already have a word for "everything". That word is "Everything". I personally like Dawkins's description of pantheism: sexed up atheism). Pantheism suggest a lighter concept of theism (once again, if it does at all) than deism does. It's basically just applying sentience to the universe, and to me that's a concept that's interesting, but has no basis in fact as far as I'm concerned, and also helps to muddle up terminology, as has just been demonstrated.  

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I used up to 48 different ones at times in these discussions. I've put in my homework here, trust me. The "Author"? With a capital A? Pray about my comprehension? To do either of those things I would have to believe in god to begin with. I've already tried that method earlier in life. Didn't work. You are quite literally saying that the way to understand what parts of the bible are true, and what parts aren't, and why it's ok that many parts aren't, you simply have to believe. So, in short, put your fingers in your ears and sing "LALALALALALAGODLALA" until your brain begins effectively blocking any attempt at reasonable discourse that can possibly shake your belief in god almighty! I, unfortunately for you, do not have the ability to deliberately contradict my mental faculties in that way, and short of a form of dementia or a brain injury, I never will. 

I asked you for a method. You basically just told me to take your word for it (by method of believing in god in advance, which then will convince you "Hey! These obvious contradictions CAN work together!". I'm not one who thinks that every religious person is insane. I think many are really stupid (young earth creationists) and sometimes it's not their fault. I think that the more intelligent ones have emotional reasons to believe, and typically won't go so far as to discuss it in depth, because even they know deep down that there's some level of bullshit to it, but they want to remain in their state of wishful thinking. I don't recommend that, but to each their own. You are actually insane it seems. This is a level of cognitive dissonance I didn't think was possible at all. Congratulations. 

contrary to your belief... I want you to go into the Bible as a non-believer... pray?  you don't need to believe in God to pray, but if you're reading scripture you must be trying to comprehend its reality in life unless you're just looking for a good story... most people looking for that type of entertainment don't turn to the Bible.... If you're trying to comprehend its reality in history then you must be also seeking the possibility of this God that doesn't exist in your mind... if you pray, what are you going to lose but a minute of your day if there is no God... if there is a God and you pray, what are you going to gain from praying? 

many people have gone into the Bible bent on being the one to ultimately prove its insanity to the world.   many of them came out of that believers.  I dare you to honestly try it.  But remember, don't stop thinking.  When one stops thinking, they get stuck in their own personal reality like those in your second paragraph. 

You don't need to believe in god to pray? Well that may be correct, but it depends on how you define prayer, and what one does when they pray. If it's meditating, if it's having a conversation with oneself, I wouldn't classify that as praying. To me, to pray is to communicate with something that you actually thing is external to yourself, whether out loud or telepathically. 

I'm not reading scripture to entertain myself. It's a document that is relevant in literature in culture, but I simply don't believe that it contains a whole lot of specific facts about history. 

I've heard of people reading the bible and becoming atheists as a result as well. I think that the exercise of trying to prove the bible's insanity to the world is a waste of time, because people believe for bad reasons, and continue to believe against all reason. Nobody's going to find some magical verse in the bible that will just end all belief. The concept of finding a magical verse in the bible to change peoples' minds is what theists are more likely to think they will do. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Where in judges does it fucking say that?? What about that chapter implies that it was an angel?

really??? it's not that long of a chapter... and context applies so it might not hurt to read the whole thing... only 25 verses.  To help you out with this tedious task;

verse 3 mentions an angel

verse 6 mentions a man of God

vs. 8, man of God

vs. 9 Angel is mentioned again

vs 10, man of God

vs.  11, man...

vs. 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, etc.....

then in vs. 22 it says; "...We will surely die for we have seen God"

Do you see why I just gave you the chapter??? i mean if you just read even the first few verses you would have had your answer

My mistake. Sorry, as I don't know why I was so agitated, and which translation I was reading. I was certain I saw no such suggestion. You're right that it says angel.

 

However, it doesn't change that these people were worried about having seen god. If they were mistaken, how did they know that it was an angel, instead of an exception being made in their case regardless?

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
zarathustra wrote:caposkia

zarathustra wrote:

caposkia wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
"Pray" = Assume your conclusion, then ruminate until you come up with something that supports it.

it it requires a rational thought to honestly pray... hmm.... most people who say what you said above aren't praying with rational thought, they're praying for their own rationality and hope that that single effort justifies their perspective....

Such a scary thing to offer to someone isn't it... otherwise, why such opposition to it?

I'm not sure "praying with rational thought" is consistent.  Unless you've proven god exists, praying presupposes the existence of a god that can hear your prayers.  

 

And presupposition isn't rational. 

you don't need to presuppose anything to talk to a wall if you don't believe in a god. 

Considering that people are reading the Bible and are trying to deeply analyze it, they're already presupposing that they have the tools needed to do so... which most don't... as a believer, one of the tools you need when reading is the power of prayer... if it makes no difference then it makes no difference.. what is there to lose?

 


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hahahaha. Yeah, because the bible was checked for slander by the authorities. Give me a break! You actually think that it's impossible for someone to have put words in god's mouth in a book? You can't honestly be serious. 

the penalty was death... how likely do you think your presupposition is correct?

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't try to keep it circular. I am simply bringing back points that you are evading, because you are....evading points!

yet I've repeatedly told you I am not and have also repeatedly told you to restate them so I can answer them... I know I have answered pretty much every statement you've made without evasion... that would be an example of trolling, when you ignore the response and circle around again.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

It happens, as I did a similar thing below as well. That said it's important to have the stories straight.

I only hope that can allow you to see I'm actually trying and not evading or trying to manipulate anything. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I concede the point in Judges as well that it mentions angels. I was really exhausted writing that. Combing through bible verses is tiring, although I don't recall seeing angels at first reading, I'm not entirely sure what translation I was reading. Either way, why be worried that they saw god and it was deadly if it was angels rather than god? These people expressed knowledge at such a rule (whereas previous people like Jacob and Abram seemed not to acknowldge any such rule). 

However, in Genesis 16 it says the Angel of the lord, but it doesn't say that in Genesis 17 or 18. The entire point is that it is inconsistent. You claim some sort of contextual feature I'm missing. However, while maybe they simply got tired of writing "the angel of the lord", there are multiple times where people are said to have seen god face to face, talked to him face to face, the lord appearing unto people and saying stuff to them, to me that is a clear indication that the book claims that these people saw god, and only later says that such a thing is impossible. We're not going to agree on this point because you have a priori decided that the bible is both true and inerrant (while being inconsistent and saying that there are errors or misunderstandings of "scale", and allowing for writer error). This position is inconsistent and not worth arguing with. 

well no, I'm open to any new ideas or perspectives... I don't see yours however.  Maybe you can show me another example where you're absolutely sure they "saw God"

Jabberwocky wrote:

Is that what that tense means? Some sort of eternal tense that doesn't exist in English? Even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that we can't describe it even if it requires more words. 

The point is that there are verses that imply god was seen. There are others that imply that he sent a different manifestation (like an angel). There are others that say specifically that his face was seen, by some significant old testament figures like Moses and Jacob. You simply pass those off as misinterpretation or a witness assuming what Moses saw. I reject your arguments because you're wholly inconsistent in your viewing of the bible. You claim that some parts are definitely true (such as trusting anyone quoting god as having said something) but then pass off things like this because it's convenient to do so (and necessary to avoid contradictions). Can you name parts of the bible you believe such a mistake applies to (the witness made assumptions) that are not contradicted by history, science, or other parts of the bible? If so, why? If not, then it makes it seem like your criteria is "It's true until proven otherwise" which is of course the wrong way to think about anything. 

well, the big one in question had to be speculative be it that it specifically states that no one dared to follow Moses up the mountain, therefore no one actually witnessed the interaction between the two and therefore no one can say for certain that Moses looked at Gods face. 

Does that cover what you were asking for or do you want something else?  This is what I mean about context though and you can't just conveniently pass it off... well, I guess you could, but it would not stand up against critique.  I have to present stuff like this to many believers who critically analyze the scriptures, so I couldn't just conveniently make it up as I go without major problems along the way.    We all might not always agree, but we're careful to separate disagreement with blatent disregard for the rules.

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. You rarely ever even go so far as to post a link justifying anything you say. Whenever you do, it's an essay. What I do my best to do is quote the relevant part, and then put the link in at the end to allow you to check it (and since I quote a chunk, you can use your browser's "find" function to easily make sure I didn't make it up). I might read that yet, but not tonight. Also, as I said, even if your claim is corroborated in there that some writings did that, is there also a suggestion there that it would apply to the bible? 

right, and when you do, I still take the time to read a least a pages worth or usually more before and after to put it all in context... What it comes down to is this topic is not as simple as you might want it to be... the essays are posted as is because they are wholly relevant. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

There you go. So can you provide me with something specific that separates Spinoza's god from Pantheism? I don't know about you, but I don't personally count Pantheism as theism (despite the name) because it simply says that everything is god in a way. But we already have a word for "everything". That word is "Everything". I personally like Dawkins's description of pantheism: sexed up atheism). Pantheism suggest a lighter concept of theism (once again, if it does at all) than deism does. It's basically just applying sentience to the universe, and to me that's a concept that's interesting, but has no basis in fact as far as I'm concerned, and also helps to muddle up terminology, as has just been demonstrated.  

well, let's stop here for a bit... Do you agree that thought can only happen in a living creature/being? If so do you buy into the possibility of Spinoza's god?  Give me more information here.  Becuase believe it or not, it is a step in the direction of understanding the being of "God" that Christians believe in. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

You don't need to believe in god to pray? Well that may be correct, but it depends on how you define prayer, and what one does when they pray. If it's meditating, if it's having a conversation with oneself, I wouldn't classify that as praying. To me, to pray is to communicate with something that you actually thing is external to yourself, whether out loud or telepathically. 

I'm not reading scripture to entertain myself. It's a document that is relevant in literature in culture, but I simply don't believe that it contains a whole lot of specific facts about history. 

I've heard of people reading the bible and becoming atheists as a result as well. I think that the exercise of trying to prove the bible's insanity to the world is a waste of time, because people believe for bad reasons, and continue to believe against all reason. Nobody's going to find some magical verse in the bible that will just end all belief. The concept of finding a magical verse in the bible to change peoples' minds is what theists are more likely to think they will do. 

most atheists did become so by reading the Bible...and misunderstanding it..   most others who have not read scritpure don't hold any belief on either side and likely could care less about the discussion/debate.

YOu're right, there is no magical verse that would convince people... that's why I keep talking about this mysterious thing called context. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

My mistake. Sorry, as I don't know why I was so agitated, and which translation I was reading. I was certain I saw no such suggestion. You're right that it says angel.

I"m used to it from you Eye-wink 

Jabberwocky wrote:

However, it doesn't change that these people were worried about having seen god. If they were mistaken, how did they know that it was an angel, instead of an exception being made in their case regardless?

The author somehow knew it was an angel of God... i'm not sure how the comprehension came to that particular author, I haven't looked into that book deep enough. 

As far as the people were concerned, they saw God... many times people have mistaken angels for God himself becuase they appear flooded in light and speak with authority.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sometimes faith requires you stick your neck out for miles . .

 

 

  Misc.  Image   See --  Misc  Image Upload -- 

   

 

 

   

     Btw,  Once again, as I already indicated before  . .  I never said if this is purely symbolic or literalistically literal (See Upload or View Image Here or  Above) -- 

 




 

caposkia wrote:

 

YOu're right, there is no magical verse that would convince people... that's why I keep talking about this mysterious thing called context. 

 

 

 

   Hey Cap   --  I thought you'd appreciate this image, this time,  Cap. 

 

  Caption reads --  ''Faith tells me no matter what lies ahead of me, God is already there''

 

  View Upload  --

    Everyone is hammering out and creates their own  'FUN' on this website . . .

 



 

  __________

  Mímisbrunnr reference in popular culture . .  (Quote) Odin: "Then we have both gained rare enlightenment. The Eye's standard gift."  Dana trying,  to facilitate dialogue  . . and all the while abiding  in Hope (smile)

 

 

 


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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hahahaha. Yeah, because the bible was checked for slander by the authorities. Give me a break! You actually think that it's impossible for someone to have put words in god's mouth in a book? You can't honestly be serious. 

the penalty was death... how likely do you think your presupposition is correct?

Lol...what? Death administered by whom? God? You do realize you are having a discussion with someone who does not believe that one exists, right? If the bible is mostly made up shit, then anyone can put any words in the mouth of god, and the only potential consequences are earthly ones by people who are angered by that. That said, if god doesn't exist, then all statements quoting god are false quotes. If your belief of the bible is helped by this in any way, that's pathetic. "The bible says that the god is true, and that misquoting god is punishable by death. Therefore all quotes attributed to god in the bible are true, because they managed to get written down". LOL.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't try to keep it circular. I am simply bringing back points that you are evading, because you are....evading points!

yet I've repeatedly told you I am not and have also repeatedly told you to restate them so I can answer them... I know I have answered pretty much every statement you've made without evasion... that would be an example of trolling, when you ignore the response and circle around again.  

No you haven't. You have not yet named the species between which you contend there is too big a gap in the human ancestral lineage to lead to us. You brought in a species currently held by scientists to be probably a cousin further away from us than the australopithecines (although not definitively as we don't yet have enough specimens to draw a definite conclusion yet). It's still possible that Orrorin is our ancestor (or is closer to our ancestor than A Afarensis). Instead of answering my question as to where your personal problem gap is, from several types of australopithecines we've discovered through a large number of homonids we've found, to homo sapiens. You have not even ATTEMPTED to look through this, and provide me with the biggest gap in the lineage given by professional biologists, and why it is an insurmountable one. I mean, if you did, it would be ridiculous anyway, as it has been mentioned countless times that we're not going to find a specimen for every 50 generations or so to give us a smooth gap. Fossilization doesn't occur frequently enough. The species you mentioned (Orrorin Tugenensis) indeed only has several fragments that have been recovered so far. The answer there is? We don't know yet where it fits in, but we know of several possibilities. 

 

All you did was bring up O. Tugenensis. You never answered my question.

capoksia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

It happens, as I did a similar thing below as well. That said it's important to have the stories straight.

I only hope that can allow you to see I'm actually trying and not evading or trying to manipulate anything. 

Nope. You're still evading what I just said above, even in this post. My mistake doesn't change that and is completely unrelated to that. My mistake doesn't magically change the fact that you refuse to actually point to a single gap in the gathered information regarding the lineage of modern homo-sapiens that is generally agreed upon by biologists, geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and almost any layperson with a decent education who doesn't adhere to your particular religious view (whether it's the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish flavour....while Jews are less likely to be Creationists, Ben Stein is still a thing). 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I concede the point in Judges as well that it mentions angels. I was really exhausted writing that. Combing through bible verses is tiring, although I don't recall seeing angels at first reading, I'm not entirely sure what translation I was reading. Either way, why be worried that they saw god and it was deadly if it was angels rather than god? These people expressed knowledge at such a rule (whereas previous people like Jacob and Abram seemed not to acknowldge any such rule). 

However, in Genesis 16 it says the Angel of the lord, but it doesn't say that in Genesis 17 or 18. The entire point is that it is inconsistent. You claim some sort of contextual feature I'm missing. However, while maybe they simply got tired of writing "the angel of the lord", there are multiple times where people are said to have seen god face to face, talked to him face to face, the lord appearing unto people and saying stuff to them, to me that is a clear indication that the book claims that these people saw god, and only later says that such a thing is impossible. We're not going to agree on this point because you have a priori decided that the bible is both true and inerrant (while being inconsistent and saying that there are errors or misunderstandings of "scale", and allowing for writer error). This position is inconsistent and not worth arguing with. 

well no, I'm open to any new ideas or perspectives... I don't see yours however.  Maybe you can show me another example where you're absolutely sure they "saw God"

You know I don't think that anyone did, but for different reasons than you, right? Sometimes your responses make me think that I actually believe that there is a god, or the bible is based in some truth, or that Jesus was really divine, or that Moses was a real person, or a whole whack of other things. I don't believe any of those things. I think that the bulk of the bible is made up of mythology, hence it is describing events which didn't actually take place. We're not going to agree. The thing is, were it not for a few verses in the new testament, this argument wouldn't exist. You would probably agree with my interpretation of Exodus 33 as well (that god was seen before, but is no longer see-able). But due to those new testament verses, you have to adhere to absolutely absurd interpretations of visions and conversations with god up to that point, suggesting that it was always angels. If it was always angels, how come it only says as much sometimes? There wasn't a lack of language. They knew the word angel in Hebrew, and they used it. The omission of it in some verses makes no sense unless it was deliberate. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Is that what that tense means? Some sort of eternal tense that doesn't exist in English? Even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that we can't describe it even if it requires more words. 

The point is that there are verses that imply god was seen. There are others that imply that he sent a different manifestation (like an angel). There are others that say specifically that his face was seen, by some significant old testament figures like Moses and Jacob. You simply pass those off as misinterpretation or a witness assuming what Moses saw. I reject your arguments because you're wholly inconsistent in your viewing of the bible. You claim that some parts are definitely true (such as trusting anyone quoting god as having said something) but then pass off things like this because it's convenient to do so (and necessary to avoid contradictions). Can you name parts of the bible you believe such a mistake applies to (the witness made assumptions) that are not contradicted by history, science, or other parts of the bible? If so, why? If not, then it makes it seem like your criteria is "It's true until proven otherwise" which is of course the wrong way to think about anything. 

well, the big one in question had to be speculative be it that it specifically states that no one dared to follow Moses up the mountain, therefore no one actually witnessed the interaction between the two and therefore no one can say for certain that Moses looked at Gods face. 

Does that cover what you were asking for or do you want something else?  This is what I mean about context though and you can't just conveniently pass it off... well, I guess you could, but it would not stand up against critique.  I have to present stuff like this to many believers who critically analyze the scriptures, so I couldn't just conveniently make it up as I go without major problems along the way.    We all might not always agree, but we're careful to separate disagreement with blatent disregard for the rules.

You answered absolutely nothing in this part of my post. You literally addressed 0 of it. You implied an eternal tense that I challeneged you to explain. You didn't do that. 

You didn't address (and I just re-iterated it in repsonse to the above chunk of post) that sometimes, the bible says "angel of god" and sometimes not. One would think that there is a reason for omitting that word in certain areas. You ignore that, and just say that either it's always an angel, or that people avert their eyes (which it doesn't say either, and if it does, it does not in every case, leaving you with the same problem). 

I then challenged you to provide me with a verse in the bible that is not contradicted by another bible verse (I know you think that none of them are, but you probably can see what I deem a contradiction, so avoid those), that is not contradicted either by science, history, archaeology, but you STILL think is inaccurate, like the suggestion that makes it seem that Moses saw god. You didn't even try it. Show me one part of the bible that you have deemed untrue by this particular criteria (writer making assumptions not having witnessed the actual event) that I wouldn't have grounds to disprove on my own. I ask you, because you seem to have a criteria that I don't, that can show a bible verse to be a bad assumption or an exaggeration by the writer. I'm curious to see how concise your criteria is, and where it can be applied. So find me another verse, that I would simply say "I think it didn't happen, but I can't disprove this particular verse" that has a similar problem. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. You rarely ever even go so far as to post a link justifying anything you say. Whenever you do, it's an essay. What I do my best to do is quote the relevant part, and then put the link in at the end to allow you to check it (and since I quote a chunk, you can use your browser's "find" function to easily make sure I didn't make it up). I might read that yet, but not tonight. Also, as I said, even if your claim is corroborated in there that some writings did that, is there also a suggestion there that it would apply to the bible? 

right, and when you do, I still take the time to read a least a pages worth or usually more before and after to put it all in context... What it comes down to is this topic is not as simple as you might want it to be... the essays are posted as is because they are wholly relevant. 

I don't believe that. You don't even take the time to read the links that YOU post, as was demonstrated when you posted a link describing potential multiple abiogenesis events, in response to my question of you offering scientific proof that the life that is extant today came from more than one single abiogenesis event. You then probably googled "multiple starts to life" or something, and posted the first link that agreed with you after reading the first sentence. A few sentences later (maybe even the very next sentence, I don't remember exactly at this point), it said literally and concisely that all life alive today DID come from a single start. The article was about abiogenesis and how several starts may have occurred, not just one, but that the result of all of the other starts is definitely extinction. So you answered my challenge to you by agreeing with me, and offering a link that amounted to disproof of your own position. 

Once again, if you don't read the links that you yourself post, how in the hell am I supposed to believe that you read the ones that I do? Also, as I said, I typically copy and paste leave a short excerpt that you can find in there easily, and then leave you to read the whole article, if you want, to make sure that I am not misrepresenting by quoting out of context. You, instead, post a link where the first few sentences agree with part of what you propose, and then the rest of it completely shatters your whole position. It's pretty incredible. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

There you go. So can you provide me with something specific that separates Spinoza's god from Pantheism? I don't know about you, but I don't personally count Pantheism as theism (despite the name) because it simply says that everything is god in a way. But we already have a word for "everything". That word is "Everything". I personally like Dawkins's description of pantheism: sexed up atheism). Pantheism suggest a lighter concept of theism (once again, if it does at all) than deism does. It's basically just applying sentience to the universe, and to me that's a concept that's interesting, but has no basis in fact as far as I'm concerned, and also helps to muddle up terminology, as has just been demonstrated.  

well, let's stop here for a bit... Do you agree that thought can only happen in a living creature/being? If so do you buy into the possibility of Spinoza's god?  Give me more information here.  Becuase believe it or not, it is a step in the direction of understanding the being of "God" that Christians believe in. 

Yes, I believe that thought (in a context of conscious thought) can only occur in a living being. Thought is a process of the brain, and thought has never been observed outside of it. To paraphrase two people, I'll begin with Sam Harris.

We now know so much about the brain, and how it works, and that everything that happens related to thought occurs within it, and is dependant on certain physical properties within it. When you damage certain parts of the brain from an accident, or a stroke, or a disease, a person loses certain abilities, memories, even personality traits. When you damage more, these things get obviously further damaged. We're supposed to believe that this is true every time it has been tested, but then when you go and destroy the entire brain, the process reverses itself and you're present somewhere remembering grandma and speaking English. 

And Sean Carroll (on near death experiences)

So this leaves us with one of two possibilites. Either there is something about consciousness that is separate from the brain and has eluded every single scientific test ever performed, all over the world....or people hallucinate when they're nearly dead! 

 

On your specific point, no I don't buy into the possibility of Spinoza's god. Either he is redefining everything as being god (which is stupid, as it only serves to make our language less precise), or he is attributing consciousness to inatimate objects. 

If the Christian god falls into a category of a disembodied mind, or something of the sort, then your entire argument fails as well. There is no evidence for such a thing. Also, if it's disembodied, then it's not physical, so nobody can see god as it's impossible (not because there is a consequence of it). When you get into definitions this murky, I don't even have to reduce your argument to the absurd. It does that on its own. I forgot which agologist (Sye Ten Delusional maybe) said something along the lines of that "everything is physical or conceptual". Physical entities like hammers, and conceptual ones like numbers. When asked "is god physical or conceptual" he said "neither". The point is to keep god ill-defined to make sure that he is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable also means unprovable, hence you are believing in a god on no evidence by definition. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You don't need to believe in god to pray? Well that may be correct, but it depends on how you define prayer, and what one does when they pray. If it's meditating, if it's having a conversation with oneself, I wouldn't classify that as praying. To me, to pray is to communicate with something that you actually thing is external to yourself, whether out loud or telepathically. 

I'm not reading scripture to entertain myself. It's a document that is relevant in literature in culture, but I simply don't believe that it contains a whole lot of specific facts about history. 

I've heard of people reading the bible and becoming atheists as a result as well. I think that the exercise of trying to prove the bible's insanity to the world is a waste of time, because people believe for bad reasons, and continue to believe against all reason. Nobody's going to find some magical verse in the bible that will just end all belief. The concept of finding a magical verse in the bible to change peoples' minds is what theists are more likely to think they will do. 

most atheists did become so by reading the Bible...and misunderstanding it..  

The misunderstanding is your assertion. If the bible is true, then you're right. If the bible isn't, then I'm right. I had to break up this post, because I hit my monitor so hard, that it just split into 3, because of the next part. 

caposkia wrote:

most others who have not read scritpure don't hold any belief on either side and likely could care less about the discussion/debate.

This is one of the most painful sentences I've ever seen you write, and I'm drawing from a pretty potent mine here. Those who haven't read scripture, if they have no other belief in any other gods, are atheists. That is what the word means. It describes one who does not believe in god. That is quite literally what the word means. Atheism means "without theism". Atheist is a person who is without theism. "Don't hold any belief on either side"....wow. I know virtually nothing about Sikhism. I still think that it's not true, due to what I know of any religion. Does that not make me an A-Sikhist? Of course it does. I don't have to examine their beliefs to personally come to a conclusion on whether I think that they're true or not. For me, "god wants the men to wear certain headwear at all times" is ridiculous enough to not need to know anything further. 

The reason this post pissed me off as it did is because you are also trying to suggest that atheism means "someone who has rejected Christianity" or "someone who hates God" (with a capital G...as in your particular god). That is something I will not stand for, because this kind of crap is used to perpetuate destructive lies. 

caposkia wrote:

YOu're right, there is no magical verse that would convince people... that's why I keep talking about this mysterious thing called context. 

Yes, and you only invoke it when the bibles internal contradictions and other obvious incorrect statements inconvenience you. For some reason, context never comes into play when the bible is actually being concise, and says nothing untrue or objectionable (rare, but it happens).

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

My mistake. Sorry, as I don't know why I was so agitated, and which translation I was reading. I was certain I saw no such suggestion. You're right that it says angel.

I"m used to it from you Eye-wink 

I can count 2. But not as bad as you, where I post links that I claim support my position, but the link actually utterly destroys it...

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

However, it doesn't change that these people were worried about having seen god. If they were mistaken, how did they know that it was an angel, instead of an exception being made in their case regardless?

The author somehow knew it was an angel of God... i'm not sure how the comprehension came to that particular author, I haven't looked into that book deep enough. 

As far as the people were concerned, they saw God... many times people have mistaken angels for God himself becuase they appear flooded in light and speak with authority.

So now you know how visions of god happen, and they conform to cliched appearances of angels and god on television? Cool! 

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
danatemporary wrote:   

danatemporary wrote:

 

 

  Misc.  Image   See --  Misc  Image Upload -- 

   

 

 

   

     Btw,  Once again, as I already indicated before  . .  I never said if this is purely symbolic or literalistically literal (See Upload or View Image Here or  Above) -- 

 




 

caposkia wrote:

 

YOu're right, there is no magical verse that would convince people... that's why I keep talking about this mysterious thing called context. 

 

 

 

   Hey Cap   --  I thought you'd appreciate this image, this time,  Cap. 

 

  Caption reads --  ''Faith tells me no matter what lies ahead of me, God is already there''

 

  View Upload  --

    Everyone is hammering out and creates their own  'FUN' on this website . . .

 



 

  __________

  Mímisbrunnr reference in popular culture . .  (Quote) Odin: "Then we have both gained rare enlightenment. The Eye's standard gift."  Dana trying,  to facilitate dialogue  . . and all the while abiding  in Hope (smile)

 

 

 

Thanks Dana


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Lol...what? Death administered by whom? God? You do realize you are having a discussion with someone who does not believe that one exists, right? If the bible is mostly made up shit, then anyone can put any words in the mouth of god, and the only potential consequences are earthly ones by people who are angered by that. That said, if god doesn't exist, then all statements quoting god are false quotes. If your belief of the bible is helped by this in any way, that's pathetic. "The bible says that the god is true, and that misquoting god is punishable by death. Therefore all quotes attributed to god in the bible are true, because they managed to get written down". LOL.

Death sentence set out by the Law of the land... this applies for anything under this context, not just the scripture.... do some history homework.

Jabberwocky wrote:

No you haven't. You have not yet named the species between which you contend there is too big a gap in the human ancestral lineage to lead to us. You brought in a species currently held by scientists to be probably a cousin further away from us than the australopithecines (although not definitively as we don't yet have enough specimens to draw a definite conclusion yet). It's still possible that Orrorin is our ancestor (or is closer to our ancestor than A Afarensis). Instead of answering my question as to where your personal problem gap is, from several types of australopithecines we've discovered through a large number of homonids we've found, to homo sapiens. You have not even ATTEMPTED to look through this, and provide me with the biggest gap in the lineage given by professional biologists, and why it is an insurmountable one. I mean, if you did, it would be ridiculous anyway, as it has been mentioned countless times that we're not going to find a specimen for every 50 generations or so to give us a smooth gap. Fossilization doesn't occur frequently enough. The species you mentioned (Orrorin Tugenensis) indeed only has several fragments that have been recovered so far. The answer there is? We don't know yet where it fits in, but we know of several possibilities. 

actually,  i understood that it was concluded that we really don't know which is our actual ancestor and that there are several possibilities... which then would make it impossible for me to specify where the gap is and also ironically make it impossible to claim there's a gap... but the reason we can't link a specific ancestor is actually because... you guessed it, a gap is there.  

I"ve asked repeatedly for someone to show me a progressive lineage to modern day humans also answered with evasion.  

Follow the thread... you will see how the discussion went from "Where's the gap" to "who's the ancestor?" It's hard to discuss with you when you keep trying to call me out on issues that have already been resolved and/or progressed to something new.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Nope. You're still evading what I just said above, even in this post. My mistake doesn't change that and is completely unrelated to that. My mistake doesn't magically change the fact that you refuse to actually point to a single gap in the gathered information regarding the lineage of modern homo-sapiens that is generally agreed upon by biologists, geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and almost any layperson with a decent education who doesn't adhere to your particular religious view (whether it's the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish flavour....while Jews are less likely to be Creationists, Ben Stein is still a thing). 

yea... didn't think so.  You sure your'e not trolling?

Jabberwocky wrote:

You know I don't think that anyone did, but for different reasons than you, right? Sometimes your responses make me think that I actually believe that there is a god, or the bible is based in some truth, or that Jesus was really divine, or that Moses was a real person, or a whole whack of other things. I don't believe any of those things. I think that the bulk of the bible is made up of mythology, hence it is describing events which didn't actually take place. We're not going to agree. The thing is, were it not for a few verses in the new testament, this argument wouldn't exist. You would probably agree with my interpretation of Exodus 33 as well (that god was seen before, but is no longer see-able). But due to those new testament verses, you have to adhere to absolutely absurd interpretations of visions and conversations with god up to that point, suggesting that it was always angels. If it was always angels, how come it only says as much sometimes? There wasn't a lack of language. They knew the word angel in Hebrew, and they used it. The omission of it in some verses makes no sense unless it was deliberate. 

honestly... you can believe me or not, but I haven't been considering the NT when disputing the point of whether anyone actually looked at God's face or not.  I'm looking at immediate context... the NT only further supports the immediate context.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

You answered absolutely nothing in this part of my post. You literally addressed 0 of it. You implied an eternal tense that I challeneged you to explain. You didn't do that. 

You didn't address (and I just re-iterated it in repsonse to the above chunk of post) that sometimes, the bible says "angel of god" and sometimes not. One would think that there is a reason for omitting that word in certain areas. You ignore that, and just say that either it's always an angel, or that people avert their eyes (which it doesn't say either, and if it does, it does not in every case, leaving you with the same problem). 

ok... the most likely answer for that is that the verses you've compared so far are written by different authors in different times.  Different people tend to have different ways of wording things.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I then challenged you to provide me with a verse in the bible that is not contradicted by another bible verse (I know you think that none of them are, but you probably can see what I deem a contradiction, so avoid those), that is not contradicted either by science, history, archaeology, but you STILL think is inaccurate, like the suggestion that makes it seem that Moses saw god. You didn't even try it. Show me one part of the bible that you have deemed untrue by this particular criteria (writer making assumptions not having witnessed the actual event) that I wouldn't have grounds to disprove on my own. I ask you, because you seem to have a criteria that I don't, that can show a bible verse to be a bad assumption or an exaggeration by the writer. I'm curious to see how concise your criteria is, and where it can be applied. So find me another verse, that I would simply say "I think it didn't happen, but I can't disprove this particular verse" that has a similar problem. 

it can be applied everywhere... These are basic rules of literature, not some special Bible rule.  The Book of Job is full of assumptive statements, granted it's part of the story, but they're still there and the context implies that those assumptions are mistaken...  Why don't you pull a random verse out and see if it works with "my" criteria.  'That way you can't accuse me of being selective.

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Caposkia wrote:

right, and when you do, I still take the time to read a least a pages worth or usually more before and after to put it all in context... What it comes down to is this topic is not as simple as you might want it to be... the essays are posted as is because they are wholly relevant. 

I don't believe that. *snip*

then don't read the links, but don't argue with me about how my links aren't being posted, or aren't relevant or are too long.  IF you're not going to take the time to read context, then we're never going to get anywhere with this discussion.  It's not resolved with a special magical statement like you would like to believe.  IT is resolved with discussion and study.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Once again, if you don't read the links that you yourself post, how in the hell am I supposed to believe that you read the ones that I do? Also, as I said, I typically copy and paste leave a short excerpt that you can find in there easily, and then leave you to read the whole article, if you want, to make sure that I am not misrepresenting by quoting out of context. You, instead, post a link where the first few sentences agree with part of what you propose, and then the rest of it completely shatters your whole position. It's pretty incredible.

yup, and when you've done that, I"ve found issue with your reasoning.  I'm careful not to pull something out of context and want you to come to your own conclusions about what is posted.  

The difference between you and me is you want me to beleive what you're telling me, and I want you to believe the truth, and not necessarily what I"m telling you.  The only way one can believe in the truth is to discover it themselves.   

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, I believe that thought (in a context of conscious thought) can only occur in a living being. Thought is a process of the brain, and thought has never been observed outside of it. To paraphrase two people, I'll begin with Sam Harris.

We now know so much about the brain, and how it works, and that everything that happens related to thought occurs within it, and is dependant on certain physical properties within it. When you damage certain parts of the brain from an accident, or a stroke, or a disease, a person loses certain abilities, memories, even personality traits. When you damage more, these things get obviously further damaged. We're supposed to believe that this is true every time it has been tested, but then when you go and destroy the entire brain, the process reverses itself and you're present somewhere remembering grandma and speaking English. 

And Sean Carroll (on near death experiences)

So this leaves us with one of two possibilites. Either there is something about consciousness that is separate from the brain and has eluded every single scientific test ever performed, all over the world....or people hallucinate when they're nearly dead! 

 

On your specific point, no I don't buy into the possibility of Spinoza's god. Either he is redefining everything as being god (which is stupid, as it only serves to make our language less precise), or he is attributing consciousness to inatimate objects. 

If the Christian god falls into a category of a disembodied mind, or something of the sort, then your entire argument fails as well. There is no evidence for such a thing. Also, if it's disembodied, then it's not physical, so nobody can see god as it's impossible (not because there is a consequence of it). When you get into definitions this murky, I don't even have to reduce your argument to the absurd. It does that on its own. I forgot which agologist (Sye Ten Delusional maybe) said something along the lines of that "everything is physical or conceptual". Physical entities like hammers, and conceptual ones like numbers. When asked "is god physical or conceptual" he said "neither". The point is to keep god ill-defined to make sure that he is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable also means unprovable, hence you are believing in a god on no evidence by definition. 

That was a big response for a simple yes or no question.

To respond to some of that response though:

Of course thought has only been observed in a physical brain... answer me this, if thought did exist outside a physical brain, how would we observe that?  If a brain was simply only a conduit for thought, kind fo like a radio receiving radio waves, how would we know that thought was not manufactured in the brain, but rather manifest physically by the brain?  

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

most others who have not read scritpure don't hold any belief on either side and likely could care less about the discussion/debate.

This is one of the most painful sentences I've ever seen you write, and I'm drawing from a pretty potent mine here. Those who haven't read scripture, if they have no other belief in any other gods, are atheists. That is what the word means. It describes one who does not believe in god. That is quite literally what the word means. Atheism means "without theism". Atheist is a person who is without theism. "Don't hold any belief on either side"....wow. I know virtually nothing about Sikhism. I still think that it's not true, due to what I know of any religion. Does that not make me an A-Sikhist? Of course it does. I don't have to examine their beliefs to personally come to a conclusion on whether I think that they're true or not. For me, "god wants the men to wear certain headwear at all times" is ridiculous enough to not need to know anything further. 

The reason this post pissed me off as it did is because you are also trying to suggest that atheism means "someone who has rejected Christianity" or "someone who hates God" (with a capital G...as in your particular god). That is something I will not stand for, because this kind of crap is used to perpetuate destructive lies. 

actually the definition of atheism is "the doctern or belief that there is no God"  yes, capital G in the definition dictionary.com.  The second definition is disbelief in the existence which still implies a side.  there are people who don't hold either perspective.  they will say they don't know, and dno't care to figure it out.  you should look it up.  Atheism literally is anti-theism, not without theism as you defined it.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

However, it doesn't change that these people were worried about having seen god. If they were mistaken, how did they know that it was an angel, instead of an exception being made in their case regardless?

The author somehow knew it was an angel of God... i'm not sure how the comprehension came to that particular author, I haven't looked into that book deep enough. 

As far as the people were concerned, they saw God... many times people have mistaken angels for God himself becuase they appear flooded in light and speak with authority.

So now you know how visions of god happen, and they conform to cliched appearances of angels and god on television? Cool! 

it is cool when you discover the wonder of context huh


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Wait, you claim that it is

 Wait, you claim that it is impossible to claim there is a gap, then in the SAME SENTENCE claim there is a gap?!?!? How intellectually dishonest can you get?

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


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/ev

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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Lol...what? Death administered by whom? God? You do realize you are having a discussion with someone who does not believe that one exists, right? If the bible is mostly made up shit, then anyone can put any words in the mouth of god, and the only potential consequences are earthly ones by people who are angered by that. That said, if god doesn't exist, then all statements quoting god are false quotes. If your belief of the bible is helped by this in any way, that's pathetic. "The bible says that the god is true, and that misquoting god is punishable by death. Therefore all quotes attributed to god in the bible are true, because they managed to get written down". LOL.

Death sentence set out by the Law of the land... this applies for anything under this context, not just the scripture.... do some history homework.

Ok. So if death for misquoting the Lord was done on earth, how do the executioners verify whether it was a real quote from god or not? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

No you haven't. You have not yet named the species between which you contend there is too big a gap in the human ancestral lineage to lead to us. You brought in a species currently held by scientists to be probably a cousin further away from us than the australopithecines (although not definitively as we don't yet have enough specimens to draw a definite conclusion yet). It's still possible that Orrorin is our ancestor (or is closer to our ancestor than A Afarensis). Instead of answering my question as to where your personal problem gap is, from several types of australopithecines we've discovered through a large number of homonids we've found, to homo sapiens. You have not even ATTEMPTED to look through this, and provide me with the biggest gap in the lineage given by professional biologists, and why it is an insurmountable one. I mean, if you did, it would be ridiculous anyway, as it has been mentioned countless times that we're not going to find a specimen for every 50 generations or so to give us a smooth gap. Fossilization doesn't occur frequently enough. The species you mentioned (Orrorin Tugenensis) indeed only has several fragments that have been recovered so far. The answer there is? We don't know yet where it fits in, but we know of several possibilities. 

actually,  i understood that it was concluded that we really don't know which is our actual ancestor and that there are several possibilities... which then would make it impossible for me to specify where the gap is and also ironically make it impossible to claim there's a gap... but the reason we can't link a specific ancestor is actually because... you guessed it, a gap is there.  

I"ve asked repeatedly for someone to show me a progressive lineage to modern day humans also answered with evasion.  

Follow the thread... you will see how the discussion went from "Where's the gap" to "who's the ancestor?" It's hard to discuss with you when you keep trying to call me out on issues that have already been resolved and/or progressed to something new.

www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
(thanks for the link beyond saving)

Yes, it's possible that some of these things we find aren't our ancestors. As you can see in the chart, it seems that we aren't descended from homo-habilis for example. However, if that was the first hominid fossil ever found by archaeologists, they might think that we are, because it possesses clearly human traits distinct from other primates. However, even though homo habilis isn't our ancestor, the prediction made by evolution is that you will find a large number of extinct branches in any lineage. So if we were to find that one first, we could make the mistaken assumption that they are our ancestors. We, however, have enough specimens where we can say, as that chart shows, who our ancestors are. There are some interesting uncertainties (such as whether we are descended from homo ergaster or from mid-generation homo erectus). However, that doesn't make a giant difference. We found what we expected to find.

Now if it were the case that we were descended from Homo Erectus, but we actually never found a single specific specimen that had homo sapien descendants, how would we possibly know? We wouldn't because those sorts of specific differences aren't possible to discern from examining fossils. Similarly, you could watch Maury Povich and say that the father looks like the child, but the DNA test is the only way we have to actually tell for certain. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, homo sapiens aren't considered to be descended from Neanderthals, but they were our cousins who lived simultaneously with homo sapiens some time ago. It is evident, since we DO have Neanderthal DNA, that some of us are part Neanderthal. That much is certain. So if you are to ask about a gap between Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens, you are asking the wrong question. We had a common ancestor, and some interbreeding occurred. So while we can't say whether we came from Homo Erectus or from Homo Ergaster, you can examine the traits of them, and find a smooth progression, regardless of which path you take. 

So in that link, you have the names of the species we are said to have evolved from. Find me where there is a problem involving some abrupt change in traits that could not possibly be accounted for by evolution. 

I'm calling you out on not answering my question. So now, Beyond Saving has done some of the work. You now have before you a lineage as understood by scientists. Do keep in mind that the data seems to go back as far as 1993, and no more recent than 2007. There could be some outdated info, but I'm happy to go with this for now as it seems quite comprehensive. So now that the first part of the work is done for you, find me gaps that can't possibly be explained by evolution. Your move. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Nope. You're still evading what I just said above, even in this post. My mistake doesn't change that and is completely unrelated to that. My mistake doesn't magically change the fact that you refuse to actually point to a single gap in the gathered information regarding the lineage of modern homo-sapiens that is generally agreed upon by biologists, geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and almost any layperson with a decent education who doesn't adhere to your particular religious view (whether it's the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish flavour....while Jews are less likely to be Creationists, Ben Stein is still a thing). 

yea... didn't think so.  You sure your'e not trolling?

I don't know how anything I'm doing can possibly be seen as trolling. I think you're just throwing the accusation at me because I accused you of the same. It's been in your list of (bad) tactics for a while now. Like when I brought up special pleading, and you kept accusing everyone of it, without seemingly having any understanding of what it actually is. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You know I don't think that anyone did, but for different reasons than you, right? Sometimes your responses make me think that I actually believe that there is a god, or the bible is based in some truth, or that Jesus was really divine, or that Moses was a real person, or a whole whack of other things. I don't believe any of those things. I think that the bulk of the bible is made up of mythology, hence it is describing events which didn't actually take place. We're not going to agree. The thing is, were it not for a few verses in the new testament, this argument wouldn't exist. You would probably agree with my interpretation of Exodus 33 as well (that god was seen before, but is no longer see-able). But due to those new testament verses, you have to adhere to absolutely absurd interpretations of visions and conversations with god up to that point, suggesting that it was always angels. If it was always angels, how come it only says as much sometimes? There wasn't a lack of language. They knew the word angel in Hebrew, and they used it. The omission of it in some verses makes no sense unless it was deliberate. 

honestly... you can believe me or not, but I haven't been considering the NT when disputing the point of whether anyone actually looked at God's face or not.  I'm looking at immediate context... the NT only further supports the immediate context.  

I disagree. Where in the old testament does it say as specifically in those new testament verses that nobody has ever seen god? The latter part of Exodus 33 suggests that Moses won't see god at that point (at least not his face...only his...back parts) but nowhere is there, to my knowledge, a full on blanket assertion that god can not be seen with the person having seen him remaining alive. It suggests it as a rule later on (I think it was that Judges verse...too lazy to look it up this moment), but it doesn't imply any such thing much if at all in the first 2 books of the bible, that include what appears to describe face to face meetings with god with some frequency. I will not agree that the immediate context implies what you say it does. When it does say angel, then ok. When it doesn't, then I disagree. Especially since when a verse is found that doesn't say or even imply an angel, you assume that the writer didn't witness it and got it wrong, or his face wasn't actually looked at for some reason. Of course, I also think that you would probably decline to take that sort of creative license with a great majority of the rest of the bible. You take this creative license with this part because there is a contradiction, and you have to do something to square it. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You answered absolutely nothing in this part of my post. You literally addressed 0 of it. You implied an eternal tense that I challeneged you to explain. You didn't do that. 

You didn't address (and I just re-iterated it in repsonse to the above chunk of post) that sometimes, the bible says "angel of god" and sometimes not. One would think that there is a reason for omitting that word in certain areas. You ignore that, and just say that either it's always an angel, or that people avert their eyes (which it doesn't say either, and if it does, it does not in every case, leaving you with the same problem). 

ok... the most likely answer for that is that the verses you've compared so far are written by different authors in different times.  Different people tend to have different ways of wording things.

I realize that. But your interpretation is that the bible can't actually be wrong...or it can, but it's not. Your position is hard to gather here. If it was written in different times in different people, how have you come to the conclusion that it's all true, rather than it being mostly false, as I have come to believe? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I then challenged you to provide me with a verse in the bible that is not contradicted by another bible verse (I know you think that none of them are, but you probably can see what I deem a contradiction, so avoid those), that is not contradicted either by science, history, archaeology, but you STILL think is inaccurate, like the suggestion that makes it seem that Moses saw god. You didn't even try it. Show me one part of the bible that you have deemed untrue by this particular criteria (writer making assumptions not having witnessed the actual event) that I wouldn't have grounds to disprove on my own. I ask you, because you seem to have a criteria that I don't, that can show a bible verse to be a bad assumption or an exaggeration by the writer. I'm curious to see how concise your criteria is, and where it can be applied. So find me another verse, that I would simply say "I think it didn't happen, but I can't disprove this particular verse" that has a similar problem. 

it can be applied everywhere... These are basic rules of literature, not some special Bible rule.  The Book of Job is full of assumptive statements, granted it's part of the story, but they're still there and the context implies that those assumptions are mistaken...  Why don't you pull a random verse out and see if it works with "my" criteria.  'That way you can't accuse me of being selective.

Because there are a great hefty shit-ton of verses in the bible. You're the one who claims to be knowledgable on it. You brought up a book that contains such statements. Why don't you present me with a few verses from Job that are assumptions, and in your opinion incorrect? I don't think that Job was a person in history either (although I've never looked it up, I could be wrong), but for the purpose of making this exercise far less annoying for everyone, I will grant that Job existed

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

I don't believe that. *snip*

then don't read the links, but don't argue with me about how my links aren't being posted, or aren't relevant or are too long.  IF you're not going to take the time to read context, then we're never going to get anywhere with this discussion.  It's not resolved with a special magical statement like you would like to believe.  IT is resolved with discussion and study.

Nice choice to snip the part where I reminded everyone that you posted a link that actually disproved your own assertion. I'll read that link when I get a chance. I've just not had as much time as before. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Once again, if you don't read the links that you yourself post, how in the hell am I supposed to believe that you read the ones that I do? Also, as I said, I typically copy and paste leave a short excerpt that you can find in there easily, and then leave you to read the whole article, if you want, to make sure that I am not misrepresenting by quoting out of context. You, instead, post a link where the first few sentences agree with part of what you propose, and then the rest of it completely shatters your whole position. It's pretty incredible.

yup, and when you've done that, I"ve found issue with your reasoning.  I'm careful not to pull something out of context and want you to come to your own conclusions about what is posted.  

The difference between you and me is you want me to beleive what you're telling me, and I want you to believe the truth, and not necessarily what I"m telling you.  The only way one can believe in the truth is to discover it themselves.   

What issues with my reasoning? What does that even mean by the way? Did I misrepresent my link by the snippets that I have posted? Can you provide me an example where I did that? I post a snippet AND the link, so that you can make sure that my excerpt isn't ripped out in order to misrepresent the original position. It reminds me of those creationists who constantly quote Darwin suggesting that the evolution of the eye is absurd. However, even Answers in Genesis has a page on their website urging creationists not to use that argument, as it is an out of context quote mine. I have to give them at least small credit for being intellectually honest (even though it's all optics, so that they can lie, and misrepresent evidence elsewhere). 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, I believe that thought (in a context of conscious thought) can only occur in a living being. Thought is a process of the brain, and thought has never been observed outside of it. To paraphrase two people, I'll begin with Sam Harris.

We now know so much about the brain, and how it works, and that everything that happens related to thought occurs within it, and is dependant on certain physical properties within it. When you damage certain parts of the brain from an accident, or a stroke, or a disease, a person loses certain abilities, memories, even personality traits. When you damage more, these things get obviously further damaged. We're supposed to believe that this is true every time it has been tested, but then when you go and destroy the entire brain, the process reverses itself and you're present somewhere remembering grandma and speaking English. 

And Sean Carroll (on near death experiences)

So this leaves us with one of two possibilites. Either there is something about consciousness that is separate from the brain and has eluded every single scientific test ever performed, all over the world....or people hallucinate when they're nearly dead! 

 

On your specific point, no I don't buy into the possibility of Spinoza's god. Either he is redefining everything as being god (which is stupid, as it only serves to make our language less precise), or he is attributing consciousness to inatimate objects. 

If the Christian god falls into a category of a disembodied mind, or something of the sort, then your entire argument fails as well. There is no evidence for such a thing. Also, if it's disembodied, then it's not physical, so nobody can see god as it's impossible (not because there is a consequence of it). When you get into definitions this murky, I don't even have to reduce your argument to the absurd. It does that on its own. I forgot which agologist (Sye Ten Delusional maybe) said something along the lines of that "everything is physical or conceptual". Physical entities like hammers, and conceptual ones like numbers. When asked "is god physical or conceptual" he said "neither". The point is to keep god ill-defined to make sure that he is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable also means unprovable, hence you are believing in a god on no evidence by definition. 

That was a big response for a simple yes or no question.

To respond to some of that response though:

Of course thought has only been observed in a physical brain... answer me this, if thought did exist outside a physical brain, how would we observe that?  If a brain was simply only a conduit for thought, kind fo like a radio receiving radio waves, how would we know that thought was not manufactured in the brain, but rather manifest physically by the brain?  

I don't know why that big response is a problem. You gave me 2 yes or no questions, and asked me to give you more information. Did I not do that? 

As far as how we could know that, it's because we can measure the reaction of the brain to external stimuli that we do understand. We can observe the brain changing in ways consistent when you administer mind altering substances to a body. Every time these things are studied, we find very consistent results, across not just all people, but a wide range of other species. I don't know of a specific test when it comes to the brain dealing with supernatural sources for knowledge. However, the brain seems to react to physical stimuli in a consistent manner. No supernatural dimension is needed to explain what goes on in the brain. Because of that, Occam's razor tells us that we shouldn't, therefore, make such an assumption. 

A non-brain related example of this is to look at the assertion of many theists that children are a gift from god, and every child conceived is a deliberate act of god. For that to be true, he would have to manipulate the sperm and egg cells during an act in order to do this. Christians frequently call contraception of all sorts (including condoms) immoral, because it is "playing god" in a sense. However, if god is doing it, then why is a condom able to stop his ability to make pregnancy happen anyhow? If god knows all and can do all, he could literally clone one of your sperm on the other side of the rubber, and send it in. The data we have suggests that conception is a purely physical thing that has no supernatural dimension attached to it. The brain is far more complicated than that, but the studies that have been done suggest the same about the brain. It is a physical organ that doesn't seem to be able to remotely access data or information in the manner you suggest. While many anecdotes exist about people knowing things that they couldn't possibly have known unless god is real and talking to them, etc., I don't buy those stories. The simplest reason is that the claims are made by not only Christians, but also by Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, etc. I have not seen one specific group come forward with evidence for their claims that is superior to all of the others in some way. The claims are mutually incompatible so they can't all be true. One can be true, but I think it's just far more likely that they're all false. FAR more likely. 

So one again. Brains. If you can provide evidence for knowledge being physically manifest in the brain in the way that you describe, then provide some evidence. If you're saying "how would we examine it"? Well...I don't know. The entire enterprise of science operates on expanding on what we DO know. When our predictions are consistent to a very high degree, we feel that we have a very good understanding of a phenomenon. If the predictions aren't as accurate, then we seek more data to see if it can be used to improve our understanding of it. When it comes to brains, there isn't some giant gap in our understanding that neuro-scientists believe requires some completely as of yet unknown phenomenon to explain. Unless you can refute that, then your assumption of this remote source for our brains' contents and ideas is baseless.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

most others who have not read scritpure don't hold any belief on either side and likely could care less about the discussion/debate.

This is one of the most painful sentences I've ever seen you write, and I'm drawing from a pretty potent mine here. Those who haven't read scripture, if they have no other belief in any other gods, are atheists. That is what the word means. It describes one who does not believe in god. That is quite literally what the word means. Atheism means "without theism". Atheist is a person who is without theism. "Don't hold any belief on either side"....wow. I know virtually nothing about Sikhism. I still think that it's not true, due to what I know of any religion. Does that not make me an A-Sikhist? Of course it does. I don't have to examine their beliefs to personally come to a conclusion on whether I think that they're true or not. For me, "god wants the men to wear certain headwear at all times" is ridiculous enough to not need to know anything further. 

The reason this post pissed me off as it did is because you are also trying to suggest that atheism means "someone who has rejected Christianity" or "someone who hates God" (with a capital G...as in your particular god). That is something I will not stand for, because this kind of crap is used to perpetuate destructive lies. 

actually the definition of atheism is "the doctern or belief that there is no God"  yes, capital G in the definition dictionary.com.  The second definition is disbelief in the existence which still implies a side.  there are people who don't hold either perspective.  they will say they don't know, and dno't care to figure it out.  you should look it up.  Atheism literally is anti-theism, not without theism as you defined it.  

Are you an a-faerieist? Do you actively believe that physical unicorns definitely do not exist and never have? Since concise definitions are important, by unicorn, I mean a horse-like creature that is white, has a single horn situated on the top-centre-ish area of its head, may or may not fly, and may or may not shit rainbows. Do you actively believe that that creature doesn't exist? 

If one doesn't give it any thought, they are an atheist because they disbelieve in the existence of a god. They don't have an active believe. Disbelief doesn't mean conscious rejection. I have a disbelief in all sorts of things I've never even heard of, because I've never heard of them so I can't believe them. I am A-ALL-of-those-things. Atheism is not literally anti-theism. Anti-theism is anti-theism. 

Theist---------------------------------------------------------Atheist. This is how it works. You either are an atheist or a theist. If your level of belief lies right on either edge, you are gnostic (AKA certain). If you are anywhere in between, you are agnostic, even if your level of certainty is high. If your level of certainty is not maximal, then you are agnostic. If you say that you are a 50/50 agnostic, then due to you still not holding an active belief in a god, you are an atheist. This is the most concise way to use the terms. Gnostic=certain. Agnostic=not certain. Theist=believer. Atheist=Not a believer. You even used the word anti-theist (although that word has multiple meanings too). Atheism isn't anti-theism, as we wouldn't need two terms for them if there were no distinction. Dictionary.com is not an authority. 

I realize that there is a difference between myself, and a Hindu in the year 1200 when it comes to the belief of your specific god. They likely had never heard of your god from start to finish. They were probably hindu polytheists. However, if they had a neighbour who didn't care about the Hindu pantheon even though they have heard of it, they are still not a Christian. They are aChristian. It doesn't require rejection. Just disbelief. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

However, it doesn't change that these people were worried about having seen god. If they were mistaken, how did they know that it was an angel, instead of an exception being made in their case regardless?

The author somehow knew it was an angel of God... i'm not sure how the comprehension came to that particular author, I haven't looked into that book deep enough. 

As far as the people were concerned, they saw God... many times people have mistaken angels for God himself becuase they appear flooded in light and speak with authority.

Where did you get this idea that floodlight and speaking with authority are the calling cards of god? 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

So now you know how visions of god happen, and they conform to cliched appearances of angels and god on television? Cool! 

it is cool when you discover the wonder of context huh

Not as cool as body-surfing the wave of air whooshing over your head, from your not having yet discovered the wonder of sarcasm. 

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
Beyond Saving wrote: Wait,

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Wait, you claim that it is impossible to claim there is a gap, then in the SAME SENTENCE claim there is a gap?!?!? How intellectually dishonest can you get?

perfect example of concluding something out of context.. try again.   read carefully next time.


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

best link yet.  solves the issue as to whether humans could be around and progressed by the time in question.  Also resolves the issue of building capability.  Shows possible connections and gaps... love it  thank you


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Ok. So if

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok. So if death for misquoting the Lord was done on earth, how do the executioners verify whether it was a real quote from god or not? 

scrolls and official scroll keepers be it that most people coldn't read

Jabberwocky wrote:

www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
(thanks for the link beyond saving)

Yes, it's possible that some of these things we find aren't our ancestors. As you can see in the chart, it seems that we aren't descended from homo-habilis for example. However, if that was the first hominid fossil ever found by archaeologists, they might think that we are, because it possesses clearly human traits distinct from other primates. However, even though homo habilis isn't our ancestor, the prediction made by evolution is that you will find a large number of extinct branches in any lineage. So if we were to find that one first, we could make the mistaken assumption that they are our ancestors. We, however, have enough specimens where we can say, as that chart shows, who our ancestors are. There are some interesting uncertainties (such as whether we are descended from homo ergaster or from mid-generation homo erectus). However, that doesn't make a giant difference. We found what we expected to find.

Now if it were the case that we were descended from Homo Erectus, but we actually never found a single specific specimen that had homo sapien descendants, how would we possibly know? We wouldn't because those sorts of specific differences aren't possible to discern from examining fossils. Similarly, you could watch Maury Povich and say that the father looks like the child, but the DNA test is the only way we have to actually tell for certain. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, homo sapiens aren't considered to be descended from Neanderthals, but they were our cousins who lived simultaneously with homo sapiens some time ago. It is evident, since we DO have Neanderthal DNA, that some of us are part Neanderthal. That much is certain. So if you are to ask about a gap between Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens, you are asking the wrong question. We had a common ancestor, and some interbreeding occurred. So while we can't say whether we came from Homo Erectus or from Homo Ergaster, you can examine the traits of them, and find a smooth progression, regardless of which path you take. 

So in that link, you have the names of the species we are said to have evolved from. Find me where there is a problem involving some abrupt change in traits that could not possibly be accounted for by evolution. 

I'm calling you out on not answering my question. So now, Beyond Saving has done some of the work. You now have before you a lineage as understood by scientists. Do keep in mind that the data seems to go back as far as 1993, and no more recent than 2007. There could be some outdated info, but I'm happy to go with this for now as it seems quite comprehensive. So now that the first part of the work is done for you, find me gaps that can't possibly be explained by evolution. Your move. 

look at the question marks and closely at the dates... there are gaps in dates and connections... the description even explains that the links are the tentative connections' pending further review with new DNA.  So as of this chart, the gaps are clearly there... otherwise, the links wouldn't be tentative.  Even they admit it. 

lemme guess... where, between what names right?  let's see what you find first, then I can explain if you really can't see it in the chart. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't know how anything I'm doing can possibly be seen as trolling. I think you're just throwing the accusation at me because I accused you of the same. It's been in your list of (bad) tactics for a while now. Like when I brought up special pleading, and you kept accusing everyone of it, without seemingly having any understanding of what it actually is. 

no, I've avoided the accusation approach until recently, but I figured I'd see how you reacted to it for a change.  I mean that is your main source of artillery in this conversation.  Fight fire with fire right?

 instead of adding something substantial to any response, for the most part, you've simply just accused and waited for a response.  It's ironic you tried to turn that one back on me here.  At least you semi-admitted to doing it yourself. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I disagree. Where in the old testament does it say as specifically in those new testament verses that nobody has ever seen god? The latter part of Exodus 33 suggests that Moses won't see god at that point (at least not his face...only his...back parts) but nowhere is there, to my knowledge, a full on blanket assertion that god can not be seen with the person having seen him remaining alive. It suggests it as a rule later on (I think it was that Judges verse...too lazy to look it up this moment), but it doesn't imply any such thing much if at all in the first 2 books of the bible, that include what appears to describe face to face meetings with god with some frequency. I will not agree that the immediate context implies what you say it does. When it does say angel, then ok. When it doesn't, then I disagree. Especially since when a verse is found that doesn't say or even imply an angel, you assume that the writer didn't witness it and got it wrong, or his face wasn't actually looked at for some reason. Of course, I also think that you would probably decline to take that sort of creative license with a great majority of the rest of the bible. You take this creative license with this part because there is a contradiction, and you have to do something to square it. 

I believe I've already discussed 33:20 and how it was a blanket response in the Hebrew.

We also have to consider the opposition... if you're basing your assertion on a "full blanket assertion", then where is the one that claims God's face can be seen up until a certain point? 

Right now you're asking me to prove a negative.   There are no first hand claims of looking at Gods face.  There are no eye witness accounts of anyone standing up to God face to face.  There are several claims of not being able to see Gods face. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I realize that. But your interpretation is that the bible can't actually be wrong...or it can, but it's not. Your position is hard to gather here. If it was written in different times in different people, how have you come to the conclusion that it's all true, rather than it being mostly false, as I have come to believe? 

Everything that has been provable or found to be true through experience, history, archaeology etc. has proven to be true.. nothing has concretely been "proven false" and thus there is little reason to consider that a random part of scripture is in fact false unless there is new evidence to believe so. 

It has in fact stood the test of time.  thousands of years worth of skeptics have tried to prove scripture wrong here and there... this even before the Bible was compiled as the book that it is.  Each individual text had been put to the test and passed.  Or at least the persons failed to show anything substantial that proves it being false. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Because there are a great hefty shit-ton of verses in the bible. You're the one who claims to be knowledgable on it. You brought up a book that contains such statements. Why don't you present me with a few verses from Job that are assumptions, and in your opinion incorrect? I don't think that Job was a person in history either (although I've never looked it up, I could be wrong), but for the purpose of making this exercise far less annoying for everyone, I will grant that Job existed.

There is question based around the book of Job.  Thats' for another thread, but lets' see what we have. 

Verse 22, Eliphaz Accuses and Exhorts Job.  The very beginning of the book states that Job is blameless. 

Chapter 24 Job makes assumptions about God ignoring wrongs. 

Chapter 15 Eliphaz assumes Job presumes too much thinking that what Job says is not of his own true knowledge.

job before was speaking of the finality of death. 

Chapter 11, Zophar rebukes Job... for what?  well, if JOb is blameless, nothing. 

I could go on.

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

I don't believe that. *snip*

then don't read the links, but don't argue with me about how my links aren't being posted, or aren't relevant or are too long.  IF you're not going to take the time to read context, then we're never going to get anywhere with this discussion.  It's not resolved with a special magical statement like you would like to believe.  IT is resolved with discussion and study.

Nice choice to snip the part where I reminded everyone that you posted a link that actually disproved your own assertion. I'll read that link when I get a chance. I've just not had as much time as before. 

yea, i snipped because if you don't believe that, then the rest of what you said was irrelevant.

Do you honestly think people on this site are that stupid?  People are incapable of following a thread so you have to remind them.

I'll help you out.  Jab would like to remind you all that I posted a link that actually disproves my own assertion... oh and he also hasn't read the link yet.

Jabberwocky wrote:

What issues with my reasoning? What does that even mean by the way? Did I misrepresent my link by the snippets that I have posted? Can you provide me an example where I did that? I post a snippet AND the link, so that you can make sure that my excerpt isn't ripped out in order to misrepresent the original position. It reminds me of those creationists who constantly quote Darwin suggesting that the evolution of the eye is absurd. However, even Answers in Genesis has a page on their website urging creationists not to use that argument, as it is an out of context quote mine. I have to give them at least small credit for being intellectually honest (even though it's all optics, so that they can lie, and misrepresent evidence elsewhere). 

the issues around you taking a small exerpt from your post failing to take into consideration the rest of the post that in some cases happen to not support your perspective then accuse me of not reading it when I call you out on it. 

See post 900 and surrounding posts.  for one of many... this was the wiki references.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't know why that big response is a problem. You gave me 2 yes or no questions, and asked me to give you more information. Did I not do that? 

you did give me more information

Jabberwocky wrote:

As far as how we could know that, it's because we can measure the reaction of the brain to external stimuli that we do understand. We can observe the brain changing in ways consistent when you administer mind altering substances to a body. Every time these things are studied, we find very consistent results, across not just all people, but a wide range of other species. I don't know of a specific test when it comes to the brain dealing with supernatural sources for knowledge. However, the brain seems to react to physical stimuli in a consistent manner. No supernatural dimension is needed to explain what goes on in the brain. Because of that, Occam's razor tells us that we shouldn't, therefore, make such an assumption. 

seems easiest to reply to this 1 paragraph at a time.

except that sometimes the simpler answer can be more correct than the more complicated answer.  I guess simple is up for debate here.  This in reference to Occam's razor.  Sure, Radio's act the same way to particular known external stimuli as well, but when an unknown external stimuli is implemented, say basic light rays, nothing happens.  If one only studies one aspect of interference and ignores the possibility of other external stimuli, or even internal stimuli that would still transmit to be received by the brain, it is then a bias conclusion. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

A non-brain related example of this is to look at the assertion of many theists that children are a gift from god, and every child conceived is a deliberate act of god. For that to be true, he would have to manipulate the sperm and egg cells during an act in order to do this. Christians frequently call contraception of all sorts (including condoms) immoral, because it is "playing god" in a sense. However, if god is doing it, then why is a condom able to stop his ability to make pregnancy happen anyhow? If god knows all and can do all, he could literally clone one of your sperm on the other side of the rubber, and send it in. The data we have suggests that conception is a purely physical thing that has no supernatural dimension attached to it. The brain is far more complicated than that, but the studies that have been done suggest the same about the brain. It is a physical organ that doesn't seem to be able to remotely access data or information in the manner you suggest. While many anecdotes exist about people knowing things that they couldn't possibly have known unless god is real and talking to them, etc., I don't buy those stories. The simplest reason is that the claims are made by not only Christians, but also by Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, etc. I have not seen one specific group come forward with evidence for their claims that is superior to all of the others in some way. The claims are mutually incompatible so they can't all be true. One can be true, but I think it's just far more likely that they're all false. FAR more likely. 

Those sound like Catholic docternal sources.  I don't adhere to many of those perspectives.  You ask the question however; 'why is a condom able to stop his ability to make pregnancy happen..?'  I say it doesn't... there's a reason why they're only 98% affective... there is a 2% margin where they fail.  My understanding is that if God wanted a couple to have a child, or more children, He would make it happen regardless of the precautions taken.  I also believe that it is not Gods intention to allow all of us to endlessly breed until menopause or death.  Those understandings of producing large families comes from the Genesis statement to Adam and Eve to be "fruitful and multiply".  Considering they would be the very first humans on Earth, it makes sense that God would want them to have as many kids as possible.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

So one again. Brains. If you can provide evidence for knowledge being physically manifest in the brain in the way that you describe, then provide some evidence. If you're saying "how would we examine it"? Well...I don't know. The entire enterprise of science operates on expanding on what we DO know. When our predictions are consistent to a very high degree, we feel that we have a very good understanding of a phenomenon. If the predictions aren't as accurate, then we seek more data to see if it can be used to improve our understanding of it. When it comes to brains, there isn't some giant gap in our understanding that neuro-scientists believe requires some completely as of yet unknown phenomenon to explain. Unless you can refute that, then your assumption of this remote source for our brains' contents and ideas is baseless.

The aspect experiement leads to the liklihood of other possible inputs. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Are you an a-faerieist? Do you actively believe that physical unicorns definitely do not exist and never have? Since concise definitions are important, by unicorn, I mean a horse-like creature that is white, has a single horn situated on the top-centre-ish area of its head, may or may not fly, and may or may not shit rainbows. Do you actively believe that that creature doesn't exist? 

I do.  I've done the research on it because people like you seem to obsess over unicorns when talking about the Bible.

Jabberwocky wrote:

If one doesn't give it any thought, they are an atheist because they disbelieve in the existence of a god. They don't have an active believe. Disbelief doesn't mean conscious rejection. I have a disbelief in all sorts of things I've never even heard of, because I've never heard of them so I can't believe them. I am A-ALL-of-those-things. Atheism is not literally anti-theism. Anti-theism is anti-theism. 

Theist---------------------------------------------------------Atheist. This is how it works. You either are an atheist or a theist. If your level of belief lies right on either edge, you are gnostic (AKA certain). If you are anywhere in between, you are agnostic, even if your level of certainty is high. If your level of certainty is not maximal, then you are agnostic. If you say that you are a 50/50 agnostic, then due to you still not holding an active belief in a god, you are an atheist. This is the most concise way to use the terms. Gnostic=certain. Agnostic=not certain. Theist=believer. Atheist=Not a believer. You even used the word anti-theist (although that word has multiple meanings too). Atheism isn't anti-theism, as we wouldn't need two terms for them if there were no distinction. Dictionary.com is not an authority. 

I realize that there is a difference between myself, and a Hindu in the year 1200 when it comes to the belief of your specific god. They likely had never heard of your god from start to finish. They were probably hindu polytheists. However, if they had a neighbour who didn't care about the Hindu pantheon even though they have heard of it, they are still not a Christian. They are aChristian. It doesn't require rejection. Just disbelief.

I gave you a specific definition with a link... you can argue it all you want.  You even contradict yourself by saying; 'they don't give it a thought either way, they disbelieve..."  Either they don't give it a thought, or they disbelieve... it can't be both.   To not believe in something means you've given it a thought and have come to a conclusion. 

if this isn't a daylight clear example of your attempt at discrediting the truth, I don't know what is. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Where did you get this idea that floodlight and speaking with authority are the calling cards of god? 

The Bible

jabberwocky wrote:

Not as cool as body-surfing the wave of air whooshing over your head, from your not having yet discovered the wonder of sarcasm. 

likewise.  Do you really think I thought you grasped what context is all of a sudden?

 


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

caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Ok. So if death for misquoting the Lord was done on earth, how do the executioners verify whether it was a real quote from god or not?  
 scrolls and official scroll keepers be it that most people coldn't read 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html(thanks for the link beyond saving) Yes, it's possible that some of these things we find aren't our ancestors. As you can see in the chart, it seems that we aren't descended from homo-habilis for example. However, if that was the first hominid fossil ever found by archaeologists, they might think that we are, because it possesses clearly human traits distinct from other primates. However, even though homo habilis isn't our ancestor, the prediction made by evolution is that you will find a large number of extinct branches in any lineage. So if we were to find that one first, we could make the mistaken assumption that they are our ancestors. We, however, have enough specimens where we can say, as that chart shows, who our ancestors are. There are some interesting uncertainties (such as whether we are descended from homo ergaster or from mid-generation homo erectus). However, that doesn't make a giant difference. We found what we expected to find. Now if it were the case that we were descended from Homo Erectus, but we actually never found a single specific specimen that had homo sapien descendants, how would we possibly know? We wouldn't because those sorts of specific differences aren't possible to discern from examining fossils. Similarly, you could watch Maury Povich and say that the father looks like the child, but the DNA test is the only way we have to actually tell for certain. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, homo sapiens aren't considered to be descended from Neanderthals, but they were our cousins who lived simultaneously with homo sapiens some time ago. It is evident, since we DO have Neanderthal DNA, that some of us are part Neanderthal. That much is certain. So if you are to ask about a gap between Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens, you are asking the wrong question. We had a common ancestor, and some interbreeding occurred. So while we can't say whether we came from Homo Erectus or from Homo Ergaster, you can examine the traits of them, and find a smooth progression, regardless of which path you take.  So in that link, you have the names of the species we are said to have evolved from. Find me where there is a problem involving some abrupt change in traits that could not possibly be accounted for by evolution.  I'm calling you out on not answering my question. So now, Beyond Saving has done some of the work. You now have before you a lineage as understood by scientists. Do keep in mind that the data seems to go back as far as 1993, and no more recent than 2007. There could be some outdated info, but I'm happy to go with this for now as it seems quite comprehensive. So now that the first part of the work is done for you, find me gaps that can't possibly be explained by evolution. Your move.  
 look at the question marks and closely at the dates... there are gaps in dates and connections... the description even explains that the links are the tentative connections' pending further review with new DNA.  So as of this chart, the gaps are clearly there... otherwise, the links wouldn't be tentative.  Even they admit it.  lemme guess... where, between what names right?  let's see what you find first, then I can explain if you really can't see it in the chart.  
 No. I don't have to do anything. I am the one of us who is satisfied that the progression posited by biologists is correct. You are the one who is convinced that they are wrong. It is your job to find me the problems that I don't see, yet you claim exist. I asked you even more specifically in another thread. So respond here, or in the flood thread. I posted a list there. I want you to find pictures of the fossils. I want you to, then, find a feature that shows a type of change that can't be explained by evolution by natural selection. I want you to post links to the pictures in question. So responding to this, either properly respond to it, or say "refer to the flood thread", and respond there. We can trim some fat off these posts that way by consolidating that.
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 I don't know how anything I'm doing can possibly be seen as trolling. I think you're just throwing the accusation at me because I accused you of the same. It's been in your list of (bad) tactics for a while now. Like when I brought up special pleading, and you kept accusing everyone of it, without seemingly having any understanding of what it actually is.  
 no, I've avoided the accusation approach until recently, but I figured I'd see how you reacted to it for a change.  I mean that is your main source of artillery in this conversation.  Fight fire with fire right?  instead of adding something substantial to any response, for the most part, you've simply just accused and waited for a response.  It's ironic you tried to turn that one back on me here.  At least you semi-admitted to doing it yourself.   
 Not for a change. You've been doing this the whole time. Every time you get accused of something, whether specifically, or whether a blanket accusation is given that applies to theists and/or apologists, you then lob the same accusation to atheists. You do it constantly. Sometimes, it can't even remotely apply.  I don't see how I'm turning something back on you, when I'm the one who (correctly) made the accusation in the first place. Now if your objective is to simply waste my time, then ok. I'll gladly sift through pages upon pages of threads (although I usually remember a few specific words I can search to speed that up) to show you that you accuse people of things only AFTER they have accused you of the same. It might take a while, but I'll do it, unless you want to admit that charge right now, in which case I'll forego making you look like a complete ass. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 I disagree. Where in the old testament does it say as specifically in those new testament verses that nobody has ever seen god? The latter part of Exodus 33 suggests that Moses won't see god at that point (at least not his face...only his...back parts) but nowhere is there, to my knowledge, a full on blanket assertion that god can not be seen with the person having seen him remaining alive. It suggests it as a rule later on (I think it was that Judges verse...too lazy to look it up this moment), but it doesn't imply any such thing much if at all in the first 2 books of the bible, that include what appears to describe face to face meetings with god with some frequency. I will not agree that the immediate context implies what you say it does. When it does say angel, then ok. When it doesn't, then I disagree. Especially since when a verse is found that doesn't say or even imply an angel, you assume that the writer didn't witness it and got it wrong, or his face wasn't actually looked at for some reason. Of course, I also think that you would probably decline to take that sort of creative license with a great majority of the rest of the bible. You take this creative license with this part because there is a contradiction, and you have to do something to square it.  
 I believe I've already discussed 33:20 and how it was a blanket response in the Hebrew. We also have to consider the opposition... if you're basing your assertion on a "full blanket assertion", then where is the one that claims God's face can be seen up until a certain point?  Right now you're asking me to prove a negative.   There are no first hand claims of looking at Gods face.  There are no eye witness accounts of anyone standing up to God face to face.  There are several claims of not being able to see Gods face.  
 Paragraph 1, I disagree. You implied an eternal context that you claimed doesn't exist in English. You have provided no explanation for that. All you have done is claimed you have some education in Hebrew. I doubt that. Everything you've posted on the topic can probably be easily googled. Further, your claim on being educated in meteorology has been, to my satisfaction, disproven. This is evidence that you are willing to lie about your own credentials. Could you show me a good reference to demonstrate this eternal context in Hebrew of which you speak? Until you do, I will assume that this eternal context is something that you have invented in order to evade a point. My answer to paragraph 2 is The fact that no mention is made before Exodus 33:20 that god can't be seen. There is a reference of Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt, but she (and Lot and his daughters) were instructed to not look upon the carnage. Nowhere is it implied that it is the seeing of god that caused her bizarre demise. Further, nowhere does it say that it's god's face specifically that is the problem either. So if Moses saw god's back parts, he saw god (at least partially....back-partialy. Hah...hahaha)On asking you to prove a negative, where am I asking you to do that? If it's something regarding the bible, then yes it IS possible to prove a negative. Can you prove that life doesn't exist on other planets? Well, not really, no. Not until you find a way to reliably check all other planets for signs of life. Can I prove to you that Optimus Prime isn't in the bible? Yes. That is because the bible is a closed system to which we have full access to. It is possible to read the bible many times in your life start to finish. Until someone demonstrates that the bible talks about Optimus Prime, and considering the fact that a very large number of people in history, and today, have read the bible and none of them have ever mentioned Optimus Prime being included in it, then we can reliably conclude that the bible does not talk about Optimus Prime. So once again, if I am asking you to prove a broad negative, it's frequently not possible. Within the confines of the bible however, it absolutely is. So where is it that I challeneged you to prove a negative? Also, I don't think I challenged you to a negative in the first place. Please point out where I did. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 I realize that. But your interpretation is that the bible can't actually be wrong...or it can, but it's not. Your position is hard to gather here. If it was written in different times in different people, how have you come to the conclusion that it's all true, rather than it being mostly false, as I have come to believe?  
 Everything that has been provable or found to be true through experience, history, archaeology etc. has proven to be true.. nothing has concretely been "proven false" and thus there is little reason to consider that a random part of scripture is in fact false unless there is new evidence to believe so.  
 Phew. I hate splitting these up because our threads do that too much as it is. But this is a major statement that is demonstrably false. The Exodus, for one, has been for all intents and purposes proven false. Jewish archaeologists set out to find evidence of it for the purpose of proving it true, accidentally proved it to be false instead. Where evidence would have to be found, they instead found none.  Further, the fact that if Jesus was anywhere near as noticeable and influential as the bible claimed him to be, he would have been noticed by at LEAST one contemporary historian. He wasn't. This means that he didn't exist in any way as a figure resembling what the gospels profess. Further, if the gospel writers themselves are to be reliable, then there is no way if they were all present for his death (or the writers were writing from reliable sources), that all of the saints rose from the dead on the spot, and 75% of the writers missed that detail, or felt it for some reason un-noteworthy to write about. Of course, I welcome you to give me a reason. However, if your reason is that the gospel writers were comparing notes and wanted to eliminate redundancies, then there should be no details aside from important ones (Jesus existed, was born, crucified, died, buried, rose from the dead) that should occur twice anywhere. However, we know that's not the case. So, what is your explanation for that glaring omission from 75% of the gospels included in the bible?  
caposkia wrote:
   It has in fact stood the test of time.  thousands of years worth of skeptics have tried to prove scripture wrong here and there... this even before the Bible was compiled as the book that it is.  Each individual text had been put to the test and passed.  Or at least the persons failed to show anything substantial that proves it being false.  
 Oh, shit. You're right. That Muhammad guy didn't come in and write his own book commenting specifically on what's true and what's false or anything, nor do close to 2 billion people on Earth believe that today (this was sarcasm btw). Once again, even if it wasn't the fact that rational people had disproven many major parts of the bible, your argument falls apart far before that. I think that Christianity and Islam are both utter bullshit. However, they are both based on separate scriptures that are held by very large amounts of people (close to 2 billion each) as the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unless you can demonstrate the Quran to be false using a proven reliable method that can't also disprove parts of the bible, then your argument is void even before I get to specifics. It just so happens that I got to specifics above though. Virtually every Christian I have ever heard attempt to disprove the Quran, cite the bible. Of course, they don't actually demonstrate that the bible is reliable to begin with. They just assert that if it contradicts the bible, it must be wrong. That is not how we reliably determine what is true or false.  
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Because there are a great hefty shit-ton of verses in the bible. You're the one who claims to be knowledgable on it. You brought up a book that contains such statements. Why don't you present me with a few verses from Job that are assumptions, and in your opinion incorrect? I don't think that Job was a person in history either (although I've never looked it up, I could be wrong), but for the purpose of making this exercise far less annoying for everyone, I will grant that Job existed. 
 There is question based around the book of Job.  Thats' for another thread, but lets' see what we have.  Verse 22, Eliphaz Accuses and Exhorts Job.  The very beginning of the book states that Job is blameless. contradiction between V22 and the beginning  Chapter 24 Job makes assumptions about God ignoring wrongs. A character making erroneous assumptions about another character isn't necessarily a contradiction Chapter 15 Eliphaz assumes Job presumes too much thinking that what Job says is not of his own true knowledge. job before was speaking of the finality of death. no idea what you mean here. Ill-formed sentences Chapter 11, Zophar rebukes Job... for what?  well, if JOb is blameless, nothing. So do you believe that Zophar did not rebuke Job? I could go on. 
 Let's just focus on the first one. Do you believe that this is an actual contradiction? If so, how do you determine which of the 2 statements is true? 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
  
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
 I don't believe that. *snip* 
 then don't read the links, but don't argue with me about how my links aren't being posted, or aren't relevant or are too long.  IF you're not going to take the time to read context, then we're never going to get anywhere with this discussion.  It's not resolved with a special magical statement like you would like to believe.  IT is resolved with discussion and study. 
 Nice choice to snip the part where I reminded everyone that you posted a link that actually disproved your own assertion. I'll read that link when I get a chance. I've just not had as much time as before.  
 yea, i snipped because if you don't believe that, then the rest of what you said was irrelevant. Do you honestly think people on this site are that stupid?  People are incapable of following a thread so you have to remind them. I'll help you out.  Jab would like to remind you all that I posted a link that actually disproves my own assertion... oh and he also hasn't read the link yet. 
No. But I think people might not be reading the whole posts and are skimming them, in which case I like to remind anyone reading (including yourself) of the important points.  Anyway, I skimmed through the link. Not an extraordinarily detailed look, but does it not say that differences in details (as ones you claim in the bible) are identified because there are writings for both older, and more recent versions, and the differences can be found in the writings? I can find nowhere that links that to how the bible was written. Not to mention, my challenge to you was to find a reference to history being written in this way. The book of the dead is not a history book anyhow. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 What issues with my reasoning? What does that even mean by the way? Did I misrepresent my link by the snippets that I have posted? Can you provide me an example where I did that? I post a snippet AND the link, so that you can make sure that my excerpt isn't ripped out in order to misrepresent the original position. It reminds me of those creationists who constantly quote Darwin suggesting that the evolution of the eye is absurd. However, even Answers in Genesis has a page on their website urging creationists not to use that argument, as it is an out of context quote mine. I have to give them at least small credit for being intellectually honest (even though it's all optics, so that they can lie, and misrepresent evidence elsewhere).  
 the issues around you taking a small exerpt from your post failing to take into consideration the rest of the post that in some cases happen to not support your perspective then accuse me of not reading it when I call you out on it.  See post 900 and surrounding posts.  for one of many... this was the wiki references. 
Not support my perspective? I have no idea what you mean. In post 900 and around there, I showed you evidence that John was understood by scholars to have been written by 3 people. Your response was basically "I need to see more evidence that John didn't write it". I can't argue with an assertion if you're going to be just asserting it without evidence. I can only point out that you have no evidence. This line of questioning had you asserting that John wrote the gospel of John. I found no evidence to suggest that, and evidence to suggest that's impossible as it seems to have been written by 3 people, rather than one. Your response, rather than attempting to discuss why that evidence isn't good, or providing evidence for your position, is to simply re-assert your own position, in a tone that implies that to you, it is true until proven false. You have, at no point anywhere on this whole forum as far as I know, never provided actual confirming evidence for any of these things that you hold to be true. True things tend to seem more likely than false things BECAUSE there is evidence for them. The more you examine that which is true, the more evidence you can often find to confirm it. The bible seems less true the more one examines it critically. That means it is likely not true.  
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 I don't know why that big response is a problem. You gave me 2 yes or no questions, and asked me to give you more information. Did I not do that?  
 you did give me more information 
Yep.
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 As far as how we could know that, it's because we can measure the reaction of the brain to external stimuli that we do understand. We can observe the brain changing in ways consistent when you administer mind altering substances to a body. Every time these things are studied, we find very consistent results, across not just all people, but a wide range of other species. I don't know of a specific test when it comes to the brain dealing with supernatural sources for knowledge. However, the brain seems to react to physical stimuli in a consistent manner. No supernatural dimension is needed to explain what goes on in the brain. Because of that, Occam's razor tells us that we shouldn't, therefore, make such an assumption.  
 seems easiest to reply to this 1 paragraph at a time. except that sometimes the simpler answer can be more correct than the more complicated answer.  I guess simple is up for debate here.  This in reference to Occam's razor.  Sure, Radio's act the same way to particular known external stimuli as well, but when an unknown external stimuli is implemented, say basic light rays, nothing happens.  If one only studies one aspect of interference and ignores the possibility of other external stimuli, or even internal stimuli that would still transmit to be received by the brain, it is then a bias conclusion.  
No it isn't. We don't ignore any known stimuli when we examine these things. You suggest that the "possibility" of other external stimuli is the problem. You are positing something that is undetectable, or at least thus far has yet to be detected. So you are talking in the realm of the (at least for now) untestable. However, just like your problems with evolution, your ignorance shines through extra bright here. Just because you personally don't believe that the scientific explanation is accurate, or at least complete, does not mean that it isn't. The brain is very complicated. However, we know what sort of stimuli it reacts to, and what sort of stimuli it doesn't. At the end of the day, your argument is "We don't know. Therefore, I posit that the Christian god is real and is responsible for the things we don't fully understand yet, and also some of the things we believe we fully understand, but we don't.". That is your argument here. It's a very weak argument. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 A non-brain related example of this is to look at the assertion of many theists that children are a gift from god, and every child conceived is a deliberate act of god. For that to be true, he would have to manipulate the sperm and egg cells during an act in order to do this. Christians frequently call contraception of all sorts (including condoms) immoral, because it is "playing god" in a sense. However, if god is doing it, then why is a condom able to stop his ability to make pregnancy happen anyhow? If god knows all and can do all, he could literally clone one of your sperm on the other side of the rubber, and send it in. The data we have suggests that conception is a purely physical thing that has no supernatural dimension attached to it. The brain is far more complicated than that, but the studies that have been done suggest the same about the brain. It is a physical organ that doesn't seem to be able to remotely access data or information in the manner you suggest. While many anecdotes exist about people knowing things that they couldn't possibly have known unless god is real and talking to them, etc., I don't buy those stories. The simplest reason is that the claims are made by not only Christians, but also by Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, etc. I have not seen one specific group come forward with evidence for their claims that is superior to all of the others in some way. The claims are mutually incompatible so they can't all be true. One can be true, but I think it's just far more likely that they're all false. FAR more likely.  
 Those sound like Catholic docternal sources.  I don't adhere to many of those perspectives.  You ask the question however; 'why is a condom able to stop his ability to make pregnancy happen..?'  I say it doesn't... there's a reason why they're only 98% affective... there is a 2% margin where they fail.  My understanding is that if God wanted a couple to have a child, or more children, He would make it happen regardless of the precautions taken.  I also believe that it is not Gods intention to allow all of us to endlessly breed until menopause or death.  Those understandings of producing large families comes from the Genesis statement to Adam and Eve to be "fruitful and multiply".  Considering they would be the very first humans on Earth, it makes sense that God would want them to have as many kids as possible.   
Children being a gift from god (and resulting anti-contraception doctrines) are not limited to the Catholic church. But here is the thing, we know that condoms aren't 100% effective, as they can break. Are you saying that god is responsible for every condom breaking, or only some? How do we determine which ones are god, and which ones aren't? The same goes for birth control pills being ineffective. I don't doubt that they can fail, even if taken correctly, however, I think that most of the time it fails it can be chalked up to other reasons (broken dosage pattern, other medication or chemicals interfering). So my question is, basically, for those taking precautions, do they get pregnant anyway because the methods aren't 100% effective, or because god causes it? Can it be either? How do we determine which it is? 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 So one again. Brains. If you can provide evidence for knowledge being physically manifest in the brain in the way that you describe, then provide some evidence. If you're saying "how would we examine it"? Well...I don't know. The entire enterprise of science operates on expanding on what we DO know. When our predictions are consistent to a very high degree, we feel that we have a very good understanding of a phenomenon. If the predictions aren't as accurate, then we seek more data to see if it can be used to improve our understanding of it. When it comes to brains, there isn't some giant gap in our understanding that neuro-scientists believe requires some completely as of yet unknown phenomenon to explain. Unless you can refute that, then your assumption of this remote source for our brains' contents and ideas is baseless. 
 The aspect experiement leads to the liklihood of other possible inputs.  
Elaborate please. 
caposkia wrote:
 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Are you an a-faerieist? Do you actively believe that physical unicorns definitely do not exist and never have? Since concise definitions are important, by unicorn, I mean a horse-like creature that is white, has a single horn situated on the top-centre-ish area of its head, may or may not fly, and may or may not shit rainbows. Do you actively believe that that creature doesn't exist?  
 I do.  I've done the research on it because people like you seem to obsess over unicorns when talking about the Bible. 
The reason atheists frequently bring up unicorns is because atheists typically believe that they and god both belong to the realm of mystical creatures.  Ok, so you make a positive claim that unicorns are not physically real. How have you come to that conclusion? What if there are unicorns, but someone, or some group of people, has gone to great measures to hide that reality for some reason?  
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 If one doesn't give it any thought, they are an atheist because they disbelieve in the existence of a god. They don't have an active believe. Disbelief doesn't mean conscious rejection. I have a disbelief in all sorts of things I've never even heard of, because I've never heard of them so I can't believe them. I am A-ALL-of-those-things. Atheism is not literally anti-theism. Anti-theism is anti-theism.  Theist---------------------------------------------------------Atheist. This is how it works. You either are an atheist or a theist. If your level of belief lies right on either edge, you are gnostic (AKA certain). If you are anywhere in between, you are agnostic, even if your level of certainty is high. If your level of certainty is not maximal, then you are agnostic. If you say that you are a 50/50 agnostic, then due to you still not holding an active belief in a god, you are an atheist. This is the most concise way to use the terms. Gnostic=certain. Agnostic=not certain. Theist=believer. Atheist=Not a believer. You even used the word anti-theist (although that word has multiple meanings too). Atheism isn't anti-theism, as we wouldn't need two terms for them if there were no distinction. Dictionary.com is not an authority.  I realize that there is a difference between myself, and a Hindu in the year 1200 when it comes to the belief of your specific god. They likely had never heard of your god from start to finish. They were probably hindu polytheists. However, if they had a neighbour who didn't care about the Hindu pantheon even though they have heard of it, they are still not a Christian. They are aChristian. It doesn't require rejection. Just disbelief. 
 I gave you a specific definition with a link... you can argue it all you want.  You even contradict yourself by saying; 'they don't give it a thought either way, they disbelieve..."  Either they don't give it a thought, or they disbelieve... it can't be both.   To not believe in something means you've given it a thought and have come to a conclusion.  if this isn't a daylight clear example of your attempt at discrediting the truth, I don't know what is.  
No it doesn't. Do you believe that my old VCR is actually a reincarnation of Genghis Khan? Probably not. You've never given it any thought until now, but before you ever read this, then it would be true that you didn't believe such a thing. If you've never given the concept of god any thought, and the first time you heard it, the concept itself was completely foreign to you, it still means that you did not believe in god until that point, even if you never professed that view (be it internally or externally).  Also, how am I trying to discredit truth here? I'm trying to get you to use concise terms that have proper definitions. I'm also trying to get you away from using the term "atheist" to mean "someone who rejects god", or anything of that sort. The term applies to anyone who does not specifically profess a belief in a god. Everyone is either a theist (and they can split into monotheists, and polytheists) or an atheist. There is no third category.  So out of curiosity, what truth was I trying to discredit?  
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Where did you get this idea that floodlight and speaking with authority are the calling cards of god?  
 The Bible 
Is that a regular description of visions of god? 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
 Not as cool as body-surfing the wave of air whooshing over your head, from your not having yet discovered the wonder of sarcasm.  
 likewise.  Do you really think I thought you grasped what context is all of a sudden? 
 I know what context is. You're the one twisting context in virtually every situation here, not me. 

 

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
No, ''tusen takk'' for simply showing up

caposkia wrote:

 

 Thanks Dana

 

   I wanted to leave it with this:: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15288?page=83 #4175  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15288?page=83#comment-417383, paying attention to its' true significance, that task is left for you!!

 

     

     Waaaaah Waaaaah! 

  No, ''tusen takk'' for simply showing up! Showing up . . Hey, That task is left for 'you', K ?

 




 

    Expressions of peaceful wishes, being at least remembered, .. once upon a time.  Whatever we may wish the state of things were. It is correct to assume not every day is always a good time, at least when demagoguery, demonization, and vendetta are failed to be put on trial.

 

 


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

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. I don't have to do anything. I am the one of us who is satisfied that the progression posited by biologists is correct. You are the one who is convinced that they are wrong. It is your job to find me the problems that I don't see, yet you claim exist. I asked you even more specifically in another thread. So respond here, or in the flood thread. I posted a list there. I want you to find pictures of the fossils. I want you to, then, find a feature that shows a type of change that can't be explained by evolution by natural selection. I want you to post links to the pictures in question. So responding to this, either properly respond to it, or say "refer to the flood thread", and respond there. We can trim some fat off these posts that way by consolidating that.
you did on the other thread, I responded some details on the other thread as well, so we can refer there for this. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Paragraph 1, I disagree. You implied an eternal context that you claimed doesn't exist in English. You have provided no explanation for that. All you have done is claimed you have some education in Hebrew. I doubt that. Everything you've posted on the topic can probably be easily googled. Further, your claim on being educated in meteorology has been, to my satisfaction, disproven. This is evidence that you are willing to lie about your own credentials. Could you show me a good reference to demonstrate this eternal context in Hebrew of which you speak? Until you do, I will assume that this eternal context is something that you have invented in order to evade a point. My answer to paragraph 2 is The fact that no mention is made before Exodus 33:20 that god can't be seen. There is a reference of Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt, but she (and Lot and his daughters) were instructed to not look upon the carnage. Nowhere is it implied that it is the seeing of god that caused her bizarre demise. Further, nowhere does it say that it's god's face specifically that is the problem either. So if Moses saw god's back parts, he saw god (at least partially....back-partialy. Hah...hahaha)On asking you to prove a negative, where am I asking you to do that? If it's something regarding the bible, then yes it IS possible to prove a negative. Can you prove that life doesn't exist on other planets? Well, not really, no. Not until you find a way to reliably check all other planets for signs of life. Can I prove to you that Optimus Prime isn't in the bible? Yes. That is because the bible is a closed system to which we have full access to. It is possible to read the bible many times in your life start to finish. Until someone demonstrates that the bible talks about Optimus Prime, and considering the fact that a very large number of people in history, and today, have read the bible and none of them have ever mentioned Optimus Prime being included in it, then we can reliably conclude that the bible does not talk about Optimus Prime. So once again, if I am asking you to prove a broad negative, it's frequently not possible. Within the confines of the bible however, it absolutely is. So where is it that I challeneged you to prove a negative? Also, I don't think I challenged you to a negative in the first place. Please point out where I did. 
I've named the tense for you in Hebrew and explained it.  Probably can be easily googled?  yea probably, so google it.Moses did see God partially.. there was no question about that, only that he didn't see His face.  you asked me to prove Moses did not see Gods face.. we've talked about several verses.  nothing specifically states that there was a witness seeing MOses look at Gods face, which then would have had to allow that witness to also see Gods face to confirm it, and there's a lot of evidence suggesting people understood that no one sees Gods face... there's nothing to suggest that it was a new rule after a certain point.  Such petty things here... do we really need to keep going with this?  it's not proving your point and it seems petty to me.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Phew. I hate splitting these up because our threads do that too much as it is. But this is a major statement that is demonstrably false. The Exodus, for one, has been for all intents and purposes proven false. Jewish archaeologists set out to find evidence of it for the purpose of proving it true, accidentally proved it to be false instead. Where evidence would have to be found, they instead found none. 
what did they look for?
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Further, the fact that if Jesus was anywhere near as noticeable and influential as the bible claimed him to be, he would have been noticed by at LEAST one contemporary historian. He wasn't. This means that he didn't exist in any way as a figure resembling what the gospels profess. Further, if the gospel writers themselves are to be reliable, then there is no way if they were all present for his death (or the writers were writing from reliable sources), that all of the saints rose from the dead on the spot, and 75% of the writers missed that detail, or felt it for some reason un-noteworthy to write about. Of course, I welcome you to give me a reason. However, if your reason is that the gospel writers were comparing notes and wanted to eliminate redundancies, then there should be no details aside from important ones (Jesus existed, was born, crucified, died, buried, rose from the dead) that should occur twice anywhere. However, we know that's not the case. So, what is your explanation for that glaring omission from 75% of the gospels included in the bible? 
historians accept that there was a Jesus who claimed to be God's son.  wiki it.  it happened 4 times from 4 different sources that have been put into the Bible.  The Quran also documents the life of Jesus and accepts Jesus as a great prophet.  There are other outside sources as well that acknowledge Jesus... wiki it.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Oh, shit. You're right. That Muhammad guy didn't come in and write his own book commenting specifically on what's true and what's false or anything, nor do close to 2 billion people on Earth believe that today (this was sarcasm btw). Once again, even if it wasn't the fact that rational people had disproven many major parts of the bible, your argument falls apart far before that. I think that Christianity and Islam are both utter bullshit. However, they are both based on separate scriptures that are held by very large amounts of people (close to 2 billion each) as the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unless you can demonstrate the Quran to be false using a proven reliable method that can't also disprove parts of the bible, then your argument is void even before I get to specifics. It just so happens that I got to specifics above though. Virtually every Christian I have ever heard attempt to disprove the Quran, cite the bible. Of course, they don't actually demonstrate that the bible is reliable to begin with. They just assert that if it contradicts the bible, it must be wrong. That is not how we reliably determine what is true or false.
how about that Muhammad was originally trying to preach to the Jews about the new comming, then claimed to be visited by a forceful angel who forced him to write the Quran though He was illiterate.  Muhammad is also one person who wrote one long book... the Bible is 66 books written over a 1500 year span by many many different unrelated authors.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
Let's just focus on the first one. Do you believe that this is an actual contradiction? If so, how do you determine which of the 2 statements is true? 
it is... you determine what's true by continuing to read the story to the end. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No. But I think people might not be reading the whole posts and are skimming them, in which case I like to remind anyone reading (including yourself) of the important points.  Anyway, I skimmed through the link. Not an extraordinarily detailed look, but does it not say that differences in details (as ones you claim in the bible) are identified because there are writings for both older, and more recent versions, and the differences can be found in the writings? I can find nowhere that links that to how the bible was written. Not to mention, my challenge to you was to find a reference to history being written in this way. The book of the dead is not a history book anyhow. 
neither is the Bible... the Bible is a book of God.  how can you reiterate the important points when it seems you keep forgetting them as the threads go on? 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Not support my perspective? I have no idea what you mean. In post 900 and around there, I showed you evidence that John was understood by scholars to have been written by 3 people. Your response was basically "I need to see more evidence that John didn't write it". I can't argue with an assertion if you're going to be just asserting it without evidence. I can only point out that you have no evidence. This line of questioning had you asserting that John wrote the gospel of John. I found no evidence to suggest that, and evidence to suggest that's impossible as it seems to have been written by 3 people, rather than one. Your response, rather than attempting to discuss why that evidence isn't good, or providing evidence for your position, is to simply re-assert your own position, in a tone that implies that to you, it is true until proven false. You have, at no point anywhere on this whole forum as far as I know, never provided actual confirming evidence for any of these things that you hold to be true. True things tend to seem more likely than false things BECAUSE there is evidence for them. The more you examine that which is true, the more evidence you can often find to confirm it. The bible seems less true the more one examines it critically. That means it is likely not true. 
how is my stance for the Bible any different than your stance against it?  and don't tell me facts or evidence because you've proven that's not the case.  you seem to negatively comment that I believe the Bible is true until proven false... Don't you hold the stance that it's false until proven true?  So how are you different than me there..and just for the record, of course you need to prove to me your assertions... why would I just accept them? 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No it isn't. We don't ignore any known stimuli when we examine these things. You suggest that the "possibility" of other external stimuli is the problem. You are positing something that is undetectable, or at least thus far has yet to be detected. So you are talking in the realm of the (at least for now) untestable. However, just like your problems with evolution, your ignorance shines through extra bright here. Just because you personally don't believe that the scientific explanation is accurate, or at least complete, does not mean that it isn't. The brain is very complicated. However, we know what sort of stimuli it reacts to, and what sort of stimuli it doesn't.
it also doesn't mean that it is... I"m just taking one Quantum theory here.. and you call me ignorant for it.  nice try though, but it's not my own theory.  I don't remember where I read it, but it's not provable at this time, so not worth discussing further, especially if quantum scientists are ignorant. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
  At the end of the day, your argument is "We don't know. Therefore, I posit that the Christian god is real and is responsible for the things we don't fully understand yet, and also some of the things we believe we fully understand, but we don't.". That is your argument here. It's a very weak argument. 
and at the end of the day your arguement of "it's false, you're ignorant" therefore there is no God is also weak.  What's your point?
Jabberwocky wrote:
Children being a gift from god (and resulting anti-contraception doctrines) are not limited to the Catholic church. But here is the thing, we know that condoms aren't 100% effective, as they can break. Are you saying that god is responsible for every condom breaking, or only some? How do we determine which ones are god, and which ones aren't? The same goes for birth control pills being ineffective. I don't doubt that they can fail, even if taken correctly, however, I think that most of the time it fails it can be chalked up to other reasons (broken dosage pattern, other medication or chemicals interfering). So my question is, basically, for those taking precautions, do they get pregnant anyway because the methods aren't 100% effective, or because god causes it? Can it be either? How do we determine which it is? 
I don't know and I think you're missing the point... the point is if God wants it to happen, He'll make it happen despite our efforts. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Elaborate please. 
The aspect experiment is where they took two subjects, one who was deemed capable of retreiving extra-sensory input and another deemed capable of transporting it.. in other words, they could allegedly read each others mind.  They were put in separate closed rooms with no visions outward.  ONe was given a picture to look at, the other person in a separate room was asked to describe the picture... though the details were not 100% clear, aspects of the picture were described by the person in the opposing room.  The study was left inconclusive becuause the subject was not able to explicity describe all the details fo the picutre, only some aspects of it.  Thus, ti is theoretically possible then for a brain to pick up the signals of another brain though undetectable in such far distances and through walls.  (Alain Aspect) 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 The reason atheists frequently bring up unicorns is because atheists typically believe that they and god both belong to the realm of mystical creatures.  Ok, so you make a positive claim that unicorns are not physically real. How have you come to that conclusion? What if there are unicorns, but someone, or some group of people, has gone to great measures to hide that reality for some reason? 
in the research that I've done, it seems all accounts of seeing a unicorn have come down to either seeing a nahrwal at sea or mistaking other animals for horses at distance... there also was one case where there was a reported birth defect in a horned animal where the horn did take on the shape of the unicorn horn... don't remember what animal or where that came from though.  That's how I've come to that conclusion, but if you have new information on these magnificant creatures, by all means.   
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No it doesn't. Do you believe that my old VCR is actually a reincarnation of Genghis Khan? Probably not. You've never given it any thought until now, but before you ever read this, then it would be true that you didn't believe such a thing. If you've never given the concept of god any thought, and the first time you heard it, the concept itself was completely foreign to you, it still means that you did not believe in god until that point, even if you never professed that view (be it internally or externally).  Also, how am I trying to discredit truth here? I'm trying to get you to use concise terms that have proper definitions. I'm also trying to get you away from using the term "atheist" to mean "someone who rejects god", or anything of that sort. The term applies to anyone who does not specifically profess a belief in a god. Everyone is either a theist (and they can split into monotheists, and polytheists) or an atheist. There is no third category.  So out of curiosity, what truth was I trying to discredit? 
for which part?  about what being an atheist is?  Again if I didn't know you had a VCR, I wouldn't have a specific belief about it... it's not disbelief.. it's no thought.  It would mean I don't believe in somethin until that point, but it also would mean I didn't disbelieve it until that point as well. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Is that a regular description of visions of god? 
or angels, yes 
jabberwocky wrote:
 I know what context is. You're the one twisting context in virtually every situation here, not me. 

 

it is what it is... look at it how you want, but i have not changed. 


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

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. I don't have to do anything. I am the one of us who is satisfied that the progression posited by biologists is correct. You are the one who is convinced that they are wrong. It is your job to find me the problems that I don't see, yet you claim exist. I asked you even more specifically in another thread. So respond here, or in the flood thread. I posted a list there. I want you to find pictures of the fossils. I want you to, then, find a feature that shows a type of change that can't be explained by evolution by natural selection. I want you to post links to the pictures in question. So responding to this, either properly respond to it, or say "refer to the flood thread", and respond there. We can trim some fat off these posts that way by consolidating that.
you did on the other thread, I responded some details on the other thread as well, so we can refer there for this. 
Still didn't address my challenge though. Perhaps my response there is specific enough that you understand what I was asking of you. As per that thread, btw, I am going to be very brief, as I feel you have been avoiding a specific challenge for months, and am generally just going to speed through these otherwise, as it's a waste of my time to discuss things in detail with someone who avoids details when they're inconvenient to their position. Until you address my challenge in the last response in the other thread, my responses are going to continue to be brief, as you have proven yourself uninterested in actual facts. I will continue to believe that about you until you do, specifically, address that.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Paragraph 1, I disagree. You implied an eternal context that you claimed doesn't exist in English. You have provided no explanation for that. All you have done is claimed you have some education in Hebrew. I doubt that. Everything you've posted on the topic can probably be easily googled. Further, your claim on being educated in meteorology has been, to my satisfaction, disproven. This is evidence that you are willing to lie about your own credentials. Could you show me a good reference to demonstrate this eternal context in Hebrew of which you speak? Until you do, I will assume that this eternal context is something that you have invented in order to evade a point. My answer to paragraph 2 is The fact that no mention is made before Exodus 33:20 that god can't be seen. There is a reference of Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt, but she (and Lot and his daughters) were instructed to not look upon the carnage. Nowhere is it implied that it is the seeing of god that caused her bizarre demise. Further, nowhere does it say that it's god's face specifically that is the problem either. So if Moses saw god's back parts, he saw god (at least partially....back-partialy. Hah...hahaha)On asking you to prove a negative, where am I asking you to do that? If it's something regarding the bible, then yes it IS possible to prove a negative. Can you prove that life doesn't exist on other planets? Well, not really, no. Not until you find a way to reliably check all other planets for signs of life. Can I prove to you that Optimus Prime isn't in the bible? Yes. That is because the bible is a closed system to which we have full access to. It is possible to read the bible many times in your life start to finish. Until someone demonstrates that the bible talks about Optimus Prime, and considering the fact that a very large number of people in history, and today, have read the bible and none of them have ever mentioned Optimus Prime being included in it, then we can reliably conclude that the bible does not talk about Optimus Prime. So once again, if I am asking you to prove a broad negative, it's frequently not possible. Within the confines of the bible however, it absolutely is. So where is it that I challeneged you to prove a negative? Also, I don't think I challenged you to a negative in the first place. Please point out where I did. 
I've named the tense for you in Hebrew and explained it.  Probably can be easily googled?  yea probably, so google it.Moses did see God partially.. there was no question about that, only that he didn't see His face. you asked me to prove Moses did not see Gods face.. we've talked about several verses.  nothing specifically states that there was a witness seeing MOses look at Gods face, which then would have had to allow that witness to also see Gods face to confirm it, and there's a lot of evidence suggesting people understood that no one sees Gods face... there's nothing to suggest that it was a new rule after a certain point. Such petty things here... do we really need to keep going with this?  it's not proving your point and it seems petty to me.  
I'm not going to spend lots of time here. I went through a couple of posts up from this searching text strings, and couldn't find your Hebrew word. If you knew it by heart Mr. Hebrew scholar, could you post it again? 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Phew. I hate splitting these up because our threads do that too much as it is. But this is a major statement that is demonstrably false. The Exodus, for one, has been for all intents and purposes proven false. Jewish archaeologists set out to find evidence of it for the purpose of proving it true, accidentally proved it to be false instead. Where evidence would have to be found, they instead found none. 
what did they look for?
Any archaeological evidence of a group of people travelling the path said to have been travelled in Exodus, which you would find considering the number of people and time taken to travel indicated by the book. In this case, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Guess what they found? Fucking nothing. Were they wrong?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Further, the fact that if Jesus was anywhere near as noticeable and influential as the bible claimed him to be, he would have been noticed by at LEAST one contemporary historian. He wasn't. This means that he didn't exist in any way as a figure resembling what the gospels profess. Further, if the gospel writers themselves are to be reliable, then there is no way if they were all present for his death (or the writers were writing from reliable sources), that all of the saints rose from the dead on the spot, and 75% of the writers missed that detail, or felt it for some reason un-noteworthy to write about. Of course, I welcome you to give me a reason. However, if your reason is that the gospel writers were comparing notes and wanted to eliminate redundancies, then there should be no details aside from important ones (Jesus existed, was born, crucified, died, buried, rose from the dead) that should occur twice anywhere. However, we know that's not the case. So, what is your explanation for that glaring omission from 75% of the gospels included in the bible? 
historians accept that there was a Jesus who claimed to be God's son.  wiki it. it happened 4 times from 4 different sources that have been put into the Bible.  The Quran also documents the life of Jesus and accepts Jesus as a great prophet.  There are other outside sources as well that acknowledge Jesus... wiki it.
No they don't. All historians citing his existence did so after his death (decades after), hence the information was at BEST second hand. None of them made that claim. 0. Josephus' writings claim that he "Was the Christ", but every modern historian (all of them, EVEN the Christian ones, aside from the very crazy ones) accept that the verses proclaiming that deviate from his writing style, and are considered to be later interpolations (possibly by Eusebius, an early Christian).  Now what happened 4 times? Not the rising of the saints. It was only written by one gospel. You didn't address that point. Why not?  The Quran does mention him, though, and you're right. Considering the popularity of Christianity at the time in that part of the world, you couldn't just ignore it. You would have to comment on it. You do highlight your lack of education on the topic here, though. The Quran is nothing really. The Talmud mentions him too. That part of the Talmud, though, was (like the Quran) written where people were willing to take the Christian's word for it. So the Quran says that he was a great prophet, and born a virgin, but not the son of god, and someone else was crucified in his place. The Talmud (closer in time and place) said that the discplies stole the body (if memory serves me right). The average Christian doesn't comment on Mormonism on a regular basis, but if asked, they do have to say "No Jesus did not come to America". This is no different.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Oh, shit. You're right. That Muhammad guy didn't come in and write his own book commenting specifically on what's true and what's false or anything, nor do close to 2 billion people on Earth believe that today (this was sarcasm btw). Once again, even if it wasn't the fact that rational people had disproven many major parts of the bible, your argument falls apart far before that. I think that Christianity and Islam are both utter bullshit. However, they are both based on separate scriptures that are held by very large amounts of people (close to 2 billion each) as the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unless you can demonstrate the Quran to be false using a proven reliable method that can't also disprove parts of the bible, then your argument is void even before I get to specifics. It just so happens that I got to specifics above though. Virtually every Christian I have ever heard attempt to disprove the Quran, cite the bible. Of course, they don't actually demonstrate that the bible is reliable to begin with. They just assert that if it contradicts the bible, it must be wrong. That is not how we reliably determine what is true or false.
how about that Muhammad was originally trying to preach to the Jews about the new comming, then claimed to be visited by a forceful angel who forced him to write the Quran though He was illiterate.  Muhammad is also one person who wrote one long book... the Bible is 66 books written over a 1500 year span by many many different unrelated authors.  
A 700 year span is a closer figure actually. And the books contradict one another, so no surprise. The scriptures of the pantheon of Hinduism are written in a similar fashion. They just were never codified by one authority as the bible was. I asked you to demonstrate the Quran false by a method that can't also disprove the bible. You commented on how they were written. It's possible for a large group of people to write many books about a common topic and be correct, and it is also possible for one person to write a large book about a topic and be correct. The method of writing does not prove or disprove anything. While you didn't cite the bible to disprove the Quran, you did imply that its method of composition makes it more valid somehow. I reject your reasoning, and I believe I have effectively explained why. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Let's just focus on the first one. Do you believe that this is an actual contradiction? If so, how do you determine which of the 2 statements is true? 
it is... you determine what's true by continuing to read the story to the end. 
Umm...even if reading it to the end makes it consistent (which I can't comment on as I haven't ever read Job in its entirety) it can't make it true. Can you point to the part, though, that explains that contradiction, which part is true, and why? Or are you going to ask me to read all of Job?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No. But I think people might not be reading the whole posts and are skimming them, in which case I like to remind anyone reading (including yourself) of the important points.  Anyway, I skimmed through the link. Not an extraordinarily detailed look, but does it not say that differences in details (as ones you claim in the bible) are identified because there are writings for both older, and more recent versions, and the differences can be found in the writings? I can find nowhere that links that to how the bible was written. Not to mention, my challenge to you was to find a reference to history being written in this way. The book of the dead is not a history book anyhow. 
neither is the Bible... the Bible is a book of God. how can you reiterate the important points when it seems you keep forgetting them as the threads go on? 
Well, so you admit that the bible doesn't speak of real history. Then we're done here? All you have to do is admit that the bible does not describe real world events that actually happened (like the flood, the tower of "babble", the Exodus, etc.) and we can agree to disagree. And, for curiosity's sake, which important points am I forgetting or ignoring?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Not support my perspective? I have no idea what you mean. In post 900 and around there, I showed you evidence that John was understood by scholars to have been written by 3 people. Your response was basically "I need to see more evidence that John didn't write it". I can't argue with an assertion if you're going to be just asserting it without evidence. I can only point out that you have no evidence. This line of questioning had you asserting that John wrote the gospel of John. I found no evidence to suggest that, and evidence to suggest that's impossible as it seems to have been written by 3 people, rather than one. Your response, rather than attempting to discuss why that evidence isn't good, or providing evidence for your position, is to simply re-assert your own position, in a tone that implies that to you, it is true until proven false. You have, at no point anywhere on this whole forum as far as I know, never provided actual confirming evidence for any of these things that you hold to be true. True things tend to seem more likely than false things BECAUSE there is evidence for them. The more you examine that which is true, the more evidence you can often find to confirm it. The bible seems less true the more one examines it critically. That means it is likely not true. 
how is my stance for the Bible any different than your stance against it?  and don't tell me facts or evidence because you've proven that's not the case.  you seem to negatively comment that I believe the Bible is true until proven false... Don't you hold the stance that it's false until proven true?  So how are you different than me there..and just for the record, of course you need to prove to me your assertions... why would I just accept them? 
The bible is a document. Sure it was written by countless people, and codified at least twice in a way (once into the Hebrew scriptures, then later into the Christian scriptures, the original which dropped a few original books as the Catholic bible does from the OT, and later the protestants included all of it). You are the one claiming that it is all true. The minimum requirement for that is internal consistency. It doesn't meet that criteria as it contradicts itself. It also contains claims that contradict science, history, archaeology, biology, and more. It's not a baseless stance on my part that the bible is untrue. It is on a solid foundation actually. See, I won't concede that we're on the same ground, or similar ground on this. This is because I am clearly right, and you are clearly wrong. Creationists (especially) always start by trying to pigeon-hole both sides into a position of similar merit, because they can't create a good enough lie to take the higher ground to begin with. Luckily, when the facts are on your side, you CAN do that. You're wrong. You're demonstrably wrong.  Also, you have (once again) avoided my specific point regarding the gospel of John, because the defenders of religion must avoid specifics, as that is how one sees the bullshit. I said in my post that you simply re-asserted your position. So now, instead of re-asserting again because you've been called on it, you've just tried to move on to the next argument, ignoring the fact that you were challenged on a specific point. Dishonest again. 9th commandment (or 8th, depending how Catholic you still think)
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No it isn't. We don't ignore any known stimuli when we examine these things. You suggest that the "possibility" of other external stimuli is the problem. You are positing something that is undetectable, or at least thus far has yet to be detected. So you are talking in the realm of the (at least for now) untestable. However, just like your problems with evolution, your ignorance shines through extra bright here. Just because you personally don't believe that the scientific explanation is accurate, or at least complete, does not mean that it isn't. The brain is very complicated. However, we know what sort of stimuli it reacts to, and what sort of stimuli it doesn't.
it also doesn't mean that it is... I"m just taking one Quantum theory here.. and you call me ignorant for it.  nice try though, but it's not my own theory.  I don't remember where I read it, but it's not provable at this time, so not worth discussing further, especially if quantum scientists are ignorant. 
You're just taking one Quantum Theory? What does that mean? The truth is that those who are simultaneously experts on the brain AND quantum theory, disagree with what you say. There are some who claim such experise (such as Deepak Chopra) that disagree with what I've just said, but they are also demonstrably charlatans. Deepak Chopra, and anyone who promotes similar things are lying. Either very, VERY deluded, or lying to make good money. That makes me angry, as I find it unethical to mislead people for personal financial gain. Don't let yourself be caught in that sort of bullshit.
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
  At the end of the day, your argument is "We don't know. Therefore, I posit that the Christian god is real and is responsible for the things we don't fully understand yet, and also some of the things we believe we fully understand, but we don't.". That is your argument here. It's a very weak argument. 
and at the end of the day your arguement of "it's false, you're ignorant" therefore there is no God is also weak.  What's your point?
No it's not. My argument is "We don't know. Therefore, there is something we can't thus far detect that is responsible". However, as I've said, knowledge is frequently on a percentage level of certainty rather than binary. Before we knew much about the brain, a large number of unethical procedures (like lobotomies) and experiments were done. We discovered that physically affecting the brain changed how it behaved. Did we know precisely how? No. But some people gained some knowledge, even if by unethical means. I am not positing that there is no god. Just that there probably is no god. To say that "probably the Christian god is true" carries a far larger suitcase of baggage with it of specific implications than the no god hypothesis does. These positions are not comparable in the way you are suggesting. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Children being a gift from god (and resulting anti-contraception doctrines) are not limited to the Catholic church. But here is the thing, we know that condoms aren't 100% effective, as they can break. Are you saying that god is responsible for every condom breaking, or only some? How do we determine which ones are god, and which ones aren't? The same goes for birth control pills being ineffective. I don't doubt that they can fail, even if taken correctly, however, I think that most of the time it fails it can be chalked up to other reasons (broken dosage pattern, other medication or chemicals interfering). So my question is, basically, for those taking precautions, do they get pregnant anyway because the methods aren't 100% effective, or because god causes it? Can it be either? How do we determine which it is? 
I don't know and I think you're missing the point... the point is if God wants it to happen, He'll make it happen despite our efforts. 
No, I'm not. I'm getting too specific and you don't like it, so you don't feel like adequately answering the question. This whole thing was about sex, birth control, etc. Does god also condemn masturbation? Because if he does not want it to ever happen, he's doing an awful job. A large percentage of people masturbate. Also, it's perfectly ok that they do, and if you disagree with that, I would like to hear why. But if god wants it to happen, he'll make it happen? So do you actually believe that a guy who got a vasectomy, verified a sperm count of 0 yesterday a few weeks after, wears a spermicide condom just because, has sex with a girl who has an IUD in, is on the pill, and has had her tubes tied, god will find a way to make her pregnant? Do you seriously believe that? 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Elaborate please. 
The aspect experiment is where they took two subjects, one who was deemed capable of retreiving extra-sensory input and another deemed capable of transporting it.. in other words, they could allegedly read each others mind.  They were put in separate closed rooms with no visions outward.  ONe was given a picture to look at, the other person in a separate room was asked to describe the picture... though the details were not 100% clear, aspects of the picture were described by the person in the opposing room.  The study was left inconclusive becuause the subject was not able to explicity describe all the details fo the picutre, only some aspects of it.  Thus, ti is theoretically possible then for a brain to pick up the signals of another brain though undetectable in such far distances and through walls.  (Alain Aspect) 
Do you wonder why it wasn't possible to describe all details? When I hear an experiment that implies some details were seen, I call bullshit on the study. Could you provide me with evidence of the example you propose? A link to the study perhaps?
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 The reason atheists frequently bring up unicorns is because atheists typically believe that they and god both belong to the realm of mystical creatures.  Ok, so you make a positive claim that unicorns are not physically real. How have you come to that conclusion? What if there are unicorns, but someone, or some group of people, has gone to great measures to hide that reality for some reason? 
in the research that I've done, it seems all accounts of seeing a unicorn have come down to either seeing a nahrwal at sea or mistaking other animals for horses at distance... there also was one case where there was a reported birth defect in a horned animal where the horn did take on the shape of the unicorn horn... don't remember what animal or where that came from though. That's how I've come to that conclusion, but if you have new information on these magnificant creatures, by all means.  
So you believe that those who actually claim that unicorns exist were mistaken, and have actually even described why??? That's actually one of the most impressive things I've seen you write here. Why not apply the same level of scepticism to god? 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No it doesn't. Do you believe that my old VCR is actually a reincarnation of Genghis Khan? Probably not. You've never given it any thought until now, but before you ever read this, then it would be true that you didn't believe such a thing. If you've never given the concept of god any thought, and the first time you heard it, the concept itself was completely foreign to you, it still means that you did not believe in god until that point, even if you never professed that view (be it internally or externally).  Also, how am I trying to discredit truth here? I'm trying to get you to use concise terms that have proper definitions. I'm also trying to get you away from using the term "atheist" to mean "someone who rejects god", or anything of that sort. The term applies to anyone who does not specifically profess a belief in a god. Everyone is either a theist (and they can split into monotheists, and polytheists) or an atheist. There is no third category.  So out of curiosity, what truth was I trying to discredit? 
for which part?  about what being an atheist is?  Again if I didn't know you had a VCR, I wouldn't have a specific belief about it... it's not disbelief.. it's no thought.  It would mean I don't believe in somethin until that point, but it also would mean I didn't disbelieve it until that point as well. 
But it quite simply does. I mean, if you ask a question such as "Do I own a computer or not?" You can agree that this is a valid question. I do own one. It's possible that I only own a tablet, or even only a smartphone, and am typing all of these posts on such a device. The reason that you are not a "jabberwockycomputerist" or an "ajabberwockycompuerist" is because  A. I probably do own one, as typing these posts on a tablet would suck, andB. Both scenarios are actually plausible, hence a neutral position is valid until better information comes in.  As a matter of probability alone, I believe it's most likely that you don't own a vinyl copy of the single "Driving in my car" by the group "Madness". I am an ACaposkiaDrivingInMyCarMadnessist. An agnostic one at that. But not 50/50. More like...say 92/8 or so. If I had more knowledge of your ownership of a record player, or other vinyl records, that number would change. However, due to th obscurity of that single, it would still weigh greatly towards "probably not". You're implying that if you didn't know I had a VCR, you wouldn't have thought about it. But that's BS. What if I actually don't? The fact that I mentioned my possible ownership of one means that you have connected ownership of a VCR to me, and have evaluated a likelihood of me owning one. So whether I do or not, the mere fact that I've injected that idea into your head means that you are able now to evaluate a likelihood. When you read what I say, you have to, by definition, think about it. It's how our brains work.  So, in the same way that nobody who died before fossils of dinosaurs were found believed that such creatures existed (even if it was because the idea was never planted into their heads), one who is never presented with a god concept does not believe that such a being exists. 
caposkia wrote:
Jabberwocky wrote:
Is that a regular description of visions of god? 
or angels, yes 
Sounds more Monty Python than bible to me. Although maybe it's both. Month Python does help highlight how ridiculous it is though. 
caposkia wrote:
jabberwocky wrote:
 I know what context is. You're the one twisting context in virtually every situation here, not me. 

 

it is what it is... look at it how you want, but i have not changed. 

Correct. The only consistent part of your view of context is....well, there is none, unless you can utter the paradoxical statement that your inconsistency is all that is consistent. 

 

So, answer my challenge at the end of the other thread. If your response to that part of that post is not a comprehensive and specific highlighting of the problems of transitional forms in the lineage of humans as understood by biologists, then we're done. I've made far too many concessions as it is. 

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.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It has been far too

It has been far too entertaining watching you kick him around like a tin can on the sidewalk for you to stop now!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:I'm not

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm not going to spend lots of time here. I went through a couple of posts up from this searching text strings, and couldn't find your Hebrew word. If you knew it by heart Mr. Hebrew scholar, could you post it again? 
"panim" is how you pronounce the word "face"  The text states they had a face to face conversation... we debated what that all means... the quesiton of tense is neuter present participle.  כִּי לֹא-יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם, וָחָי.  "man shall not see me and live"  There is no indication that it did not apply to the past.. there's no referene or tense inferring; "from hereon out"  or anything else for that matter... there is no other Biblical or extra-Biblical reasoning that I'm aware of that supports your conclusion.  Unless you have some information you're neglecting to share. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Any archaeological evidence of a group of people travelling the path said to have been travelled in Exodus, which you would find considering the number of people and time taken to travel indicated by the book. In this case, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Guess what they found? Fucking nothing. Were they wrong?
So... because we can't find evidence then that the Bible also didn't happen, then I guess it's logical to also conclude that it did... I stated that because that's how logical that statement above looks to me.  E.g. we found nothing, therefore nothing happened.  No room for human error or mistaken location because well.. humans are perfect.  Please link me to that archaeological journey.. i'd love to see the writeup on it.  Unless... well... you do have a writeup on it don't you?  I mean you didn't just conclude that based on a heresay statement did you?   again???
Jabberwocky wrote:
 No they don't.
fine, they don't... Ive only done extensive homework on the research... nothing rational of course Eye-wink 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 A 700 year span is a closer figure actually. 
no, 1500 years... unless... heh.. again, you have a source for that conclusion... there are many sources when you google it claiming the 1500 year span... either way, 700 years is still a big deal and does not support you any better.
Jabberwocky wrote:
And the books contradict one another, so no surprise. The scriptures of the pantheon of Hinduism are written in a similar fashion. They just were never codified by one authority as the bible was. 
yes, those mysterious contradictions that you can't point out.
Jabberwocky wrote:
I asked you to demonstrate the Quran false by a method that can't also disprove the bible. You commented on how they were written. It's possible for a large group of people to write many books about a common topic and be correct, and it is also possible for one person to write a large book about a topic and be correct. The method of writing does not prove or disprove anything. While you didn't cite the bible to disprove the Quran, you did imply that its method of composition makes it more valid somehow. I reject your reasoning, and I believe I have effectively explained why. 
I see your reasoning, and raise you logistics.  one witness is less likely than many if an event actually happened or is happening.  The Quran is also written roughly 500 years after the Bible and when reading it, it's obvious that it uses the Bible as a source in many areas... The Bible is an older book as well and ended long before the Quran got started, yet the Quran speaks of the same timeline.  All the books of the Bible were written closer in date to the alleged occurances described in the books. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Umm...even if reading it to the end makes it consistent (which I can't comment on as I haven't ever read Job in its entirety) it can't make it true. Can you point to the part, though, that explains that contradiction, which part is true, and why? Or are you going to ask me to read all of Job?
well, it's all in context really, but if you want to read the last chapter (42) then you can see the response of God to JOb's friends.  God stating that what they said was not true.. contradictory to truth.  it's usually easier to understand if you actually discover it yourself.  Quite daring on my part to suggest if it's not actually true. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 

 

Well, so you admit that the bible doesn't speak of real history. Then we're done here? All you have to do is admit that the bible does not describe real world events that actually happened (like the flood, the tower of "babble", the Exodus, etc.) and we can agree to disagree. And, for curiosity's sake, which important points am I forgetting or ignoring?
good job ignoring yet another question.  I lost count on what you've ignored, but it's consistent with dating in the Noah discussion, the context of the Moses discussion, etc.  IT's pretty much everything that doesn't work for your POV that seems to conveniently be forgotten.. we've gone in many circles fo that very reason.
Jabberwocky wrote:
The bible is a document. Sure it was written by countless people, and codified at least twice in a way (once into the Hebrew scriptures, then later into the Christian scriptures, the original which dropped a few original books as the Catholic bible does from the OT, and later the protestants included all of it). You are the one claiming that it is all true. The minimum requirement for that is internal consistency. It doesn't meet that criteria as it contradicts itself. It also contains claims that contradict science, history, archaeology, biology, and more. It's not a baseless stance on my part that the bible is untrue. It is on a solid foundation actually. See, I won't concede that we're on the same ground, or similar ground on this. This is because I am clearly right, and you are clearly wrong. Creationists (especially) always start by trying to pigeon-hole both sides into a position of similar merit, because they can't create a good enough lie to take the higher ground to begin with. Luckily, when the facts are on your side, you CAN do that. You're wrong. You're demonstrably wrong. 
yet you have not pointed out one sound contradiction in scriputre...  only that things don't seem consistent in your perspective without reading context... which of course I can make contradictions in any writing using that methodology.    The contradictoins in science have been based on perspective descriptions of events rather than a scientific explanation, which logically would not exist in the Bible because it's not a science book.  Archaeology??? there is an archaeological study Bible... check it out sometime.  Biology?  is that in reference to the Noah ancestry thing that we were going through?  we can't use that as a defense unless you can specifically date the event. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
 Also, you have (once again) avoided my specific point regarding the gospel of John, because the defenders of religion must avoid specifics, as that is how one sees the bullshit. I said in my post that you simply re-asserted your position. So now, instead of re-asserting again because you've been called on it, you've just tried to move on to the next argument, ignoring the fact that you were challenged on a specific point. Dishonest again. 9th commandment (or 8th, depending how Catholic you still think)
I'm waiting for further reasoning from you on John be it that you made a claim that is contradicting what I've read from several other scholars including the ones who've written the Zondervan study.  It is possible that it was written by more than one person, but the claim is that one person likely used other sources to write it... again, waiting on you.  I know where I stand with God and am not worried about your perspective.  You have proven it to be unreliable at this point.  
Jabberwocky wrote:
 You're just taking one Quantum Theory? What does that mean? The truth is that those who are simultaneously experts on the brain AND quantum theory, disagree with what you say. There are some who claim such experise (such as Deepak Chopra) that disagree with what I've just said, but they are also demonstrably charlatans. Deepak Chopra, and anyone who promotes similar things are lying. Either very, VERY deluded, or lying to make good money. That makes me angry, as I find it unethical to mislead people for personal financial gain. Don't let yourself be caught in that sort of bullshit.
I don't.  how are they lying?  What is it they're lying about and by what basis?  specify the study so I can research it. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
No, I'm not. I'm getting too specific and you don't like it, so you don't feel like adequately answering the question. This whole thing was about sex, birth control, etc. Does god also condemn masturbation? Because if he does not want it to ever happen, he's doing an awful job. A large percentage of people masturbate. Also, it's perfectly ok that they do, and if you disagree with that, I would like to hear why. But if god wants it to happen, he'll make it happen? So do you actually believe that a guy who got a vasectomy, verified a sperm count of 0 yesterday a few weeks after, wears a spermicide condom just because, has sex with a girl who has an IUD in, is on the pill, and has had her tubes tied, god will find a way to make her pregnant? Do you seriously believe that? 
God lets us make our own choices.  Can't blame God for your mistakes.  God condemns lust, can you masterbate without lusting after someone?  if so, I guess you're in the clear.  As far as your last question, let's break it down... We'll ignore the fact that God inpregnated a virgin because you don't believe that anway.guys who have gotten vascectomy's have still gotten girls pregnant, likely didn't have a 0 sprerm count..., spermacide condoms are not considered 100% for a reason, Girls on the pill have gotten pregnant. Put it all together?  it's probably as likely as life itself.  however, if God really wanted those 2 people to get pregnant, likely they are followers of Him too or He wouldn't commission them to be parents, He would have likely put it in their hearts to not want to do all that, or if they did, He might find a loophole in the process or casue one either before the vasectamy or hormonal balance, etc... I believe God would find a way to make them pregnant... Again, though we can defy God and He will let us, so if people knew Gods plan and wanted to make absolutely sure they defied Him, they could actually just not have sex and avoid the pregnancy possibility altogether.  Honestly, if you seriously believe life just happened as with Darwinistic evolution, then why is it so hard to believe that somehow your hypothetical couple could get pregnant in some strange twisted way?  Nothing done by man is foolproof, I think we can both agree there. 
Jabberwocky wrote:
Do you wonder why it wasn't possible to describe all details? When I hear an experiment that implies some details were seen, I call bullshit on the study. Could you provide me with evidence of the example you propose? A link to the study perhaps?
I read the study in a book by Amit Goswami PHD.  YOu do wonder why all the details were not described, but I also wonder how any of the details were described considering the subject was not allowed to see anything being presented.  luck perhaps?   
Jabberwocky wrote:
 So you believe that those who actually claim that unicorns exist were mistaken, and have actually even described why??? That's actually one of the most impressive things I've seen you write here. Why not apply the same level of scepticism to god? 
there's no actual research to back up the claim against God like with the unicorns.
Jabberwocky wrote:
 But it quite simply does. I mean, if you ask a question such as "Do I own a computer or not?" You can agree that this is a valid question. I do own one. It's possible that I only own a tablet, or even only a smartphone, and am typing all of these posts on such a device. The reason that you are not a "jabberwockycomputerist" or an "ajabberwockycompuerist" is because  A. I probably do own one, as typing these posts on a tablet would suck, andB. Both scenarios are actually plausible, hence a neutral position is valid until better information comes in.  As a matter of probability alone, I believe it's most likely that you don't own a vinyl copy of the single "Driving in my car" by the group "Madness". I am an ACaposkiaDrivingInMyCarMadnessist. An agnostic one at that. But not 50/50. More like...say 92/8 or so. If I had more knowledge of your ownership of a record player, or other vinyl records, that number would change. However, due to th obscurity of that single, it would still weigh greatly towards "probably not". You're implying that if you didn't know I had a VCR, you wouldn't have thought about it. But that's BS. What if I actually don't? The fact that I mentioned my possible ownership of one means that you have connected ownership of a VCR to me, and have evaluated a likelihood of me owning one. So whether I do or not, the mere fact that I've injected that idea into your head means that you are able now to evaluate a likelihood. When you read what I say, you have to, by definition, think about it. It's how our brains work.  So, in the same way that nobody who died before fossils of dinosaurs were found believed that such creatures existed (even if it was because the idea was never planted into their heads), one who is never presented with a god concept does not believe that such a being exists. 
I agree a neutral standpoint is logical, but as far as you owning or knowing of anything, I'd have to take your word on it and at this point, I'm not aware of any Jabberwocky studies that support any claim that you make...  if I had to conclude based on anything, it would be your trustworthiness... which is a bit shaky.  
Jabberwocky wrote:

Correct. The only consistent part of your view of context is....well, there is none, unless you can utter the paradoxical statement that your inconsistency is all that is consistent. 

bring to light my inconsistency.  This is proof you have no basis for your conclusion... there is no context you say, yet you're talking about a book... which is context... odd.

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

So, answer my challenge at the end of the other thread. If your response to that part of that post is not a comprehensive and specific highlighting of the problems of transitional forms in the lineage of humans as understood by biologists, then we're done. I've made far too many concessions as it is. 

As I've said I'm not an expert in that field.. be it that my attempts at explaining my understanding to you is not sufficient, I will start linking others that explain it, probably better than I... if I get no response, I'll just wait.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/transitional-fossils/those-fossils-are-a-problem/


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
I'm mostly leaving this

I'm mostly leaving this alone for now. I outlined in my other post what I wanted of you. Your response to that challenge here is insufficient. I might respond later with any lies I detect in this particular link from AiG, as creationists love to quote mine biologists, anthropologists, geologists, etc., in order to mis-represent them. Aside from that, I won't give any more response. My challenge did not ask you to be an expert. You, yourself, accept that all dogs have a common ancestor (from a great dane, to the adorable 8lb miniature pinscher sitting on my lap this very moment). I showed you pictures of variations in just a few dog skulls. I also provided you with a chart showing the somewhat current (few decades old) understanding of the ancestry of homosapiens going through the hominids, australopiths and an ardepith.

My challenge was to google pictures of the bones from those species (be it skulls, pelvis, limbs, ribcage, whatever you like) and find a massive difference between 2 species that are adjacent on that chart provided (so Australopithecus Afarensis to Australopithecus Africanus would be a correct comparison. Australopithecus Afarensis to Homo Ergaster would NOT, as there are outlined several steps between them). That is all I ask of you. I wouldn't even mind if you posted a creationist website link like you did now, so long as it addressed the challenge I have put forth, rather than just say 

Quote:

Sunderland relentlessly takes the reader on an excursion with the experts to every single major transition-the net result is devastating.

Of course I would have to read the book to see exactly what that means, and I find it unethical to give creationists money. It might be similar to what you've done, and jump across a chasm, skipping the many intermediates. However, I will do a breakdown of every single name-drop in that link, because I found it absolutely hilarious! 

Dr. David Pilbeam: Considering he is currently the Henry Ford II Professor of Human Evolution at Harvard, I doubt he doubts evolution in any way shape or form. Maybe he's teaching creationism at Harvard. Of course, the silence from atheists on that would suggest strongly that he's doing no such thing. The part of your link where it said 

Quote:

He did not believe any longer that he was likely to hit upon the true or correct story of the origin of man.

It was probably a statement of intellectual honesty saying that we don't (and maybe can't) know EXACTLY what happened. Very similar to creationists quoting Darwin's sentence about the eye evolving being "absurd in the highest degree" and then failing to quote the next few sentences that he explains that it seems absurd in an intuitive sense, but is the most likely as per his current thinking. In the same way, I wouldn't doubt if a quote could be attributed to him (that was not put in quotations) that would say as much, but he probably elaborates further. Pilbeam probably would feel misrepresented were this to get sent to him. AiG probably damn well know that too. 

Richard & Mary Leakey: All that was pointed out was that their offices were nearby. Creationists like to name drop as much as possible just to cover everything. There is literally no further comment on Leakey. I have seen creationists misrepreseting Leakey though as well, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. This was a name-drop, nothing more. 

Colin Patterson: From his wikipedia page:

Quote:

Although Patterson did not support creationism, his work has been cited by creationists as evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.[5][6] In "Evolution", Patterson explains how his remarks were taken out of context. "Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candor in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context" (p 122).

So my accusation of quote-mining regarding David Pilbeam. Patterson is basically saying here that it is exactly what they do. Creationists do honestly feel that any quote is a success, even if it is deliberately taken out of context, which is tantamount to lying. 

Luther Sunderland: [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html[/url]

Here is a nice little breakdown of how Luther Sunderland and other creationists deliberately misquote biologists (including Patterson). Worse yet, when called on it, with Pattersons asked about the quotation, he said that the quotation is accurate but said that the person writing him interpreted it correctly. When he sent the correspondence back to creationists, they quote mined

Quote:

"The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes."

That is lying. That is dishonest. Creationists do it all. The. Time! 

Duane Gish: A liar. Is credited for inventing the frustrating debate tactic known as the "gish gallop" where one makes as many points as humanly possible in the shortest time frame to ensure that they can't all be adequately addressed. In subsequent responses, the debater then doesn't address the topics that were addressed, but accuses their opponent of missing the things that they didn't have time to address. 

BONUS: What is a transitional form between a human and an ape? A great example is when the creationists are split down the middle when shown a fossil as to whether it's 100% human or 100% ape. If about half say human, the other half say ape, isn't that a little odd? It would suggest that a hard line between the two is hard to determine. I wonder why? The reason I bring this up is that Duane Gish was once shown the same fossil twice, and in one instance called it 100% human, and in the other, 100% ape.

 

Anyway, too lazy to do the last few. Answer my challenge in the way I have outlined and we can talk further. I just found it too important to miss pointing out that creationists lie. 

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.