Well, if you’re thinking you will fight my ignorance, I have to clue you in that these glib derisive comments do not have much probative value to me.
Enlighten me, I missed the Santa Claus experiments.
It is glaringly obvious he meant the written word alone. It is also glaringly obvious that you rather play word games than have an honest discussion.
No, there’s no requirement for there to have been only a few or for there to have been any sharp transition between species.
And against everything else you are claiming. Why believe one and not the other?
God violates the laws of physics and the claims made about him are mutually contradictory. Not that it matters; the logical default is that there is no god (or Santa Claus, or elves, or any other random baseless claim); it’s the job of those postulating such a creature to provide evidence. they’ve never even provided evidence that their god is possible, much less real.
Nonsense. Someone made up some stories and put a character named Moses in them. By your “logic” we should believe that Frodo Baggins was real.
It has plenty of means, and repeatedly has. This idea that the “supernatural” is untestable and undetectable is a recent invention. Historically religion has made plenty of testable claims; and been proven wrong again and again. Whenever religion makes a claim that can actually be tested, it proves to be wrong; so the believers at this point have in many cases retreated to what amounts to solipsism. They’ve been pushed into a tiny little corner of what religion used to claim and are trying desperately to pretend otherwise.
You ask for a cite and then say to disregard anything I’ve read.
Do you want cites or not? And when I provide them will you accept the preponderance of agreement from disparate quarters on the subject, or simply launch into another screed of convoluted illogic or, as in post #235, another exhibition of your almost embarrassing dismissal of the evolution of mankind to homo sapiens from protohumans by treating the allegorical story of Adam and Eve as fact?
Wow, this is amazingly wrong. I’ve read lots of flood stories - many of them have the survivors in a boat or on a mountain top. They come down when the flood recedes, and find some other band coming over the hill, demonstrating the flood was local. Sure there were floods, just no global one. Visit talk.origins for more details, but some of the problems are that there wouldn’t be enough people to populate certain ancient civilizations, to get the diversity we see now would require a type of hyper-evolution which would make a creationist’s head explode, that if the water fell from orbit its potential energy would cook everything on earth (which you can see with some simple freshman physics) and of course that there is no geological or fossil evidence. I’d also recommend a trip to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. There they have examples of pottery from China that shows a clear line of artistic development, and which starts well before the Flood supposedly happened. Odd that the descendants of Noah would wander to China and take up the same artistic style as the dead former residents.
If you know anything about evolution or biology (which I’m guessing you don’t) you’ll know that there is no time when a small population suddenly becomes homo sapiens. A population group would be slowly evolving from the predecessor species. And I’m not arguing about names. There is a genetic Eve, and a genetic Adam, but they lived thousands (probably tens of thousands) of years apart.
You said, and I quote:
Are you now saying that it is indeed absolutely certain that Scriptures are false?
The 6,000 year people were not guessing - the genealogies are very clear about years. And don’t give me the day = 1 million years bit. I’ve read Genesis 1 in Hebrew, and it is clear that days are meant - as in it was the evening and the morning, the third day. Very beautiful in Hebrew, by the way.
You clearly either did not read or understand what I said. Which god? Your god doesn’t seem to have created the world 6,000 years ago, but Billy Bob Nitwit, the fundamentalist pastor, has a god who did. You people have so many versions of god we can’t keep them straight. So, try again.
Tens of thousands of people supposedly camped for about 40 years in an environment which is excellent for preserving relics. Hell, they found the camps of the people who built the pyramids. Nobody finding the slightest sign of it is plenty of evidence for me. What other evidence of their non-existence do you want?
Dr. Watson said his name. Is that evidence that he and Holmes actually existed. And, in fact, nowhere in the Torah, as far as I recall, does it say Moses actually wrote them.
Another fun fact. The Torah is the most important thing in Judaism, giving history and rules to live by. Life centers around it, in a very real way. Read Judges, and Chronicles, and Kings. The Ark is very present in these stories - the Torah not at all. Then it was “discovered” much later. That is about as believable as someone “discovering” the real version of the Constitution in a closet in the Supreme Court building and trying to pass it off as written by Madison.
That bubbemeiser. The prohibition on pork was an old tribal taboo. Plenty of other cultures did eat pork and shellfish and did just fine. It’s not like they hadn’t invented fire, after all. Plus there is a whole lot more to the dietary laws than these prohibitions. What are the health aspects of not mixing meat and dairy?
He doesn’t say Scripture is 100% correct. He kind of accepts evolution and biology.
No, you didn’t really address any of my points. Want to try again? Couldn’t Rhine have “proven” (actually demonstrated) ESP. Your use of prove and disprove shows that you don’t have any real understanding of how science operates.
Here is the quote from Novelty Bobble
Here is your mistranslation of it.
Not trusting something is not at all the same as disregarding it. It just means that critical and skeptical reading skills are required. Few documents from ancient history are trusted. Historians examine the motives of the writer and look for supporting evidence, especially of extraordinary claims.
When I review technical papers, even by people I know and trust, I sure as hell read critically also, and try to catch them when they go beyond what the evidence warrants. They do the same for me, and I’m glad they do.
You’re implying that said doper meant no written words can ever be trusted?
OK, is your counterpoint that all written words should be trusted? I’m pretty sure it won’t be. So the question is: how should we rigorously determine which written words we should trust?
Pretty much everyone else has taken my comment in the correct way David42. I thought it was fairly clear what I meant.
In case you need clarification let me do that for you.
The fact that something is simply written down says nothing about its veracity. If there is nothing else backing it up then you be wary of trusting it and be very careful what actions you take on the basis of that alone.
If what backs it up is merely anecdote at second, third or fiftieth-hand, then again, that adds pretty much nothing to the truth of the written statement.
If what backs it up is stand-alone evidence that the reader can verify for themselves, then the written statements can be given more weight. (note-if that evidence is self referencing and circular then again, it adds nothing).
Well, reviewing that post, I believe he also said you can’t trust what people said they see either.
Play word games? From the guy who can’t actually devise a test but instead suggests there have been scientific tests for Santa Claus?
Playing word games is what the secular humanist defenders on this board are doing. You’re all dismissing a historical document arbitrarily claiming it means nothing, and you STILL can’t identify why. Not a single one of you measure it in terms of social relevency to the Hebrew others, which means you can’t understand it. It’s accuracy is indisputable for historical fact even if one takes the supernatural parts for wishful thinking. If you SIR were interested in an honest discussion, you’d confess the scripture has at least some archeological value, for instance, the finding of Jericho.
But it’s entirely dismissed because Moses didn’t have a microscope and wasn’t peer reviewed, with no acknowledgment that what you demand from this document wasn’t possible at that time.
First the doper said you can’t trust a witness, then he said you can’t trust the written word. He’s the one who said no more no less. If he meant only the scripture he could have said so.
Regarding ancient documents and how to analyze them:
First you could admit the need for cultural relevancy instead of acting like it was a Stephen King novel written yesterday. That’s your first step.
Secondly, you can quit interpreting every single word as literal like the fundies do, and take notice of these things called literary devices.
Thirdly, you can admit that ancient archeological sites have been found with scripture ALONE as the guide.
But finding Jericho has “no value” to you guys apparently, which really means that your interest isn’t in honestly determining what value scripture has, but instead want to diss religion.
By the eivdence of the board I don’t think anyone here even knows what “cultural relevancy” is, since it’s been completely ignored. It means you view the document on the culture’s terms that produced it, rather than your own.
Ever heard that phrase “One man’s magic is another man’s science?”
I did, and I stand by it. Let me repeat it for you.
“you can’t trust what people say they have seen”
And why? because people lie and even the honest ones can be fooled and their perception is individual and subjective.
Of course some people do indeed report anecdotes accurately and tell the truth but how do you know which is which?
No, we’ve pointed out over and over why. Multiple reasons why.
More nonsense. Its “social relevancy” to the Hebrews or anyone else has nothing to do with its historical accuracy. And as has been pointed out, it has been demonstrated to be inaccurate.
No, he was imaginary.
The point has been made that your side of this argument is not that of skeptics because, apparently, everyone on the secularist human side believes in COMPLETE AND UTTER FALSITY, not a matter of mere distrust and verification. It’s being compared to Harry Potter, sheesh, and you call that critical skepticism? THe claims are insane, even claiming that the author didn’t exist with no explanation for how the document got here if that is so.
I’ve seen what the secular humanists do with “extraordinary claims.” First they presume it couldn’t have happened, then date it on that basis, then use their dating to “prove” it couldn;t have happened, which is plain and simply circular reasoning. Others who are willing to admit that though it is extraordinary in some places, it may be true, come up with different conclusions.
Please quit comparing ancient religious text with modern technical papers. there is no comparison. The lack of a rigorous scientific process and the language of science didn’t exist back then, so quit condemning it for that fact.
**And for those of you who won’t even contemplate believing the scripture without accompanying video evidence, please explain just exactly what form of evidence WOULD be acceptable to you to further a belief in an extraordinary claim. **
I find there is some extrordinary evidence in the bible, but it’s not easily explained because it requires deep study of the scripture to understand, which no-one here appears willing to do without first determining it to be wrong.
Decision first, study afterwards is Alice-In-Wonderland reasoning.
Not sure why you having so much trouble with this very simple concept.
Maybe it is a definition of “trust” which in this context I take to mean as “accept as 100% true”
I’m betting even you don’t take a single writing or a single eye-witness account as completely accurate and would look for evidence to back it up. That is all that is being meant here.
Scripture is to be looked upon with great mistrust due to translation errors, contextual errors, transcription errors, transference errors, length of time between incident and recording and the supernatural nature of the claims.
And in what way is that unfair? Except perhaps to Harry Potter.
This is such an incredible misstating of what has been discussed so far that I can only make one of two conclusions, but I think I’ll just give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you seem to be totally incapable of understanding what is being discussed here.
You know, we could dance around forever trying to argue about what everybody else really meant, against each others’ protestations that it wasn’t.
Why don’t you just pick a piece of scripture that says something interesting, preferrably extraordinary, and tell your opponents exactly why you think they should accept its veracity?
Instead of arguing generalities, why not look at some details. Maybe we can work back to generalised methods if we can actually compose one that works on a specific bit of scripture.
You are ranting and it is making your points difficult to follow. Lets try this bit by bit.
Firstly, it is trivial for a piece of writing to be assigned to an imaginary author.
It is amusing for a religious apologist to accuse others of circular reasoning but never mind. You do realise that a secular humanist can be religious don’t you? That rather makes the rest of this point irrelevant.
No-one is trying prove a negative here, that isn’t how it works. Your claim - your responsibility.
If you have evidence for a biblical claim then lay it out in front of us and it’ll be judged on its merits.
So…let’s not take what was written at face value then?
It depends, the nature of the suitable evidence will change according to what you are claiming…what are you claiming?
Try us, seriously. There are some very smart people on these boards and I guarantee you that many on the further end of the atheist spectrum have studied religious texts very closely indeed.
The problem you have with evidence, clearly seen in this last comment, is that you are unable to explain to us what it is. Or you resort to the courtiers reply that we haven’t studied the bible enough. I suspect that is because you know the evidence is tenuous and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and by refusing to present it to us you can keep pretending to yourself that “we won’t understand”
No-one has “decided” anything though. We take the default position that no gods exist and wait for suitable evidence to show otherwise.
Your “decision first, study afterwards” is EXACTLY the religious position…i.e. “God exists, now let me find something that shows it to be true”
Not one person here has ever claimed that the author of the book of Exodus never existed. What they claim is that all evidence found to date indicates that the stories in Exodus are false. They never happened. They also claim that Moses never existed. If you are honestly unable to tell the difference between the author, narrator or central characters of a story you have more of a problem than simple ateists.
Ok you got me on that one. If I don’t believe something happened, how do I come up with a date for that not-happening to happen. And if I set a date for the not-happen to have happened does that mean I’ve said it happened. And does that then mean that the happening I believe not-happened actually happened. In which case the date I set for the not-happening happening was incorrect because I based it on not-happening noy happening. But in that case if my date for the not-happening happening is incorrest then it never happened at that date in the first place so it’s a not-happening again…
Then show us some. Oh no wait I know your reply already…
“You’ve already made up your mind it’s not evidence”
Another cite request if you don’t mind.
Please provide an example of someone being executed in our secular society due to a single eyewitness testimony and no other evidence.
I think it is up to the person who believes on how it helps or hurts. I don’t believe one can destroy the faith for another, if they now see reason to not believe, then that is up to them, or if they choose to believe that too is their personal choice.