Atheistforums.com

Biblical Contradictions (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,5.msg16.html#msg16)
I saw there was a link sent to a Christian for him to investigate all the contradictions of the Bible.
I followed this link and saw it is only a copy of Shabir Ally's Muslim claims he stole from the Skeptics' annotated Bible (https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/)
I did an in depth study of these claims and found that there are actually 3 minor errors in the Bible, and the almost 1 000 others are all but blatant ignorance on the part of the Bible skeptics.

Let me give you one such a contradiction and show you how wrong many people are when they did not take the Bible as a sourse of facts, but misjudged it at a superficial face value.

Quote from: Biblical contradictions
198. Were there 1,100,000 soldiers in Israel?
Yes
1 Chr 21:5

Quote from: Quote
And Joab gave the sum of the number of people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

No
2 Sam 24:9

Quote from: Quote
And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

199. Were there 500,000 soldiers in Judah?
Yes
2 Sam 24:9

Quote from: Quote
And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

No:
1 Chr 21:5

Quote from: Quote
And Joab gave the sum of the number of people unto David. and all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword.

Now, this is an excellent example of someone reading the Bible, and found a problem, then claim the Bible is in error.
First, I would expect anyone who accuses someone being in error, whither it be a person, or a written document, to at least go and investigate before making claims that is evidence of ignorance.

AS i said, the above is a great example of a person totally unqualified to make any judgement on the Bible.
Let me show you in a follow up post how unqualified this atheist actually is!

This is what you will find in the Bible about the count of the men in Israel and Judah
How many fighting men were found in Israel?
(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9).
(b) One million, one hundred thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5).

Answer:
Please read 1 Chronicles 27: 1 â€" 24. Here you will see that there was a permanent force of 24 000 men for every month of the Year. That will give you a total of 288 000 men not counted in 2 Samuel 24: 9. In 2 Samuel 24: 9 the description is “800 000 valiant men that drew the sword”, but, in 1 Chronicles 21:5 it states, “…and all they of Israel…”

1 Chronicles 21:5 counts 1 100 000 of Israel.
The mathematics work as follow:

In 2 Samuel 24: 9 it counts 800 000 fighting men that reported for battle.
ï,§   Adding the 288 000 permanent force, it results in 1 088 000 men.
This was the men and not the commanders of 100 and 1000. They would be:
ï,§   Commanders over 100 = 10 880
ï,§   Commanders over 1000 = 1 088
ï,§   This gives a total of 800 000 + 288 000 + 10 880 + 1 088 = 1 099 968 men.
This will leave 32 men to equal 1 100 000.
ï,§   In 1 Chronicles 11: 26 to 12:1 you will find that David had a personal guard of brave men numbering 30!
So, 1 099 968 + 30 equals 1 099 998 men!
ï,§   This leaves two men short. David was one!
This leaves one man short. But the Bible tells us who he was.

ï,§   Read about Him in 2 Samuel 5: 24!

Hu, the Bible describes the exact amount of soldiers in Israel pulled up for battle! And you thought it was an error.

But lets continue with the count of Judah!
How many fighting men were found in Judah?
(a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9).
(b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5).

Answer:
The same scenario as with 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5
2 Samuel 24:9 counts Judah as 500 000.
1 Chronicles 21:5 counts without the permanent force. They amounted to 30 000 as per 2 Sam 6: 1.
470 000 + 70 000 = 500 000
Wow, the Bible describes exactly the amount of soldiers in Judah also!

Now, you can go and google anywhere in the WWW, you will not find this answer as set out as above.

Great, this is but one example of the ignorance by an Atheist on Skeptic's Bible. a Muslim that thought he was clever to plagiarize these so called contradictions, and an Atheist here that places this post to a Christian as evidence that the Bible is wrong.
What now?
Will the Atheist please go and change his list!
Then come back and give us another concoction to answer.
Fact is, all your so called evidence that the Bible is wrong, can not hold against the Scripture once we investigat what it says, and not what Atheists think it says.
:cool:

Your math sucks.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 20, 2018, 08:08:58 AMI did an in depth study

[sotto voce]First hit at a Christian apologetics site[/sotto voce]

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 20, 2018, 08:32:54 AM
This is what you will find in the Bible about the count of the men in Israel and Judah
How many fighting men were found in Israel?
(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9).
(b) One million, one hundred thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5).

Answer:
Please read 1 Chronicles 27: 1 â€" 24. Here you will see that there was a permanent force of 24 000 men for every month of the Year. That will give you a total of 288 000 men not counted in 2 Samuel 24: 9. In 2 Samuel 24: 9 the description is “800 000 valiant men that drew the sword”, but, in 1 Chronicles 21:5 it states, “…and all they of Israel…”

1 Chronicles 21:5 counts 1 100 000 of Israel.
The mathematics work as follow:

In 2 Samuel 24: 9 it counts 800 000 fighting men that reported for battle.
ï,§   Adding the 288 000 permanent force, it results in 1 088 000 men.
This was the men and not the commanders of 100 and 1000. They would be:
ï,§   Commanders over 100 = 10 880
ï,§   Commanders over 1000 = 1 088
ï,§   This gives a total of 800 000 + 288 000 + 10 880 + 1 088 = 1 099 968 men.
This will leave 32 men to equal 1 100 000.
ï,§   In 1 Chronicles 11: 26 to 12:1 you will find that David had a personal guard of brave men numbering 30!
So, 1 099 968 + 30 equals 1 099 998 men!
ï,§   This leaves two men short. David was one!
This leaves one man short. But the Bible tells us who he was.

ï,§   Read about Him in 2 Samuel 5: 24!

Hu, the Bible describes the exact amount of soldiers in Israel pulled up for battle! And you thought it was an error.

But lets continue with the count of Judah!
How many fighting men were found in Judah?
(a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9).
(b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5).

Answer:
The same scenario as with 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5
2 Samuel 24:9 counts Judah as 500 000.
1 Chronicles 21:5 counts without the permanent force. They amounted to 30 000 as per 2 Sam 6: 1.
470 000 + 70 000 = 500 000
Wow, the Bible describes exactly the amount of soldiers in Judah also!

Now, you can go and google anywhere in the WWW, you will not find this answer as set out as above.

Great, this is but one example of the ignorance by an Atheist on Skeptic's Bible. a Muslim that thought he was clever to plagiarize these so called contradictions, and an Atheist here that places this post to a Christian as evidence that the Bible is wrong.
What now?
Will the Atheist please go and change his list!
Then come back and give us another concoction to answer.
Fact is, all your so called evidence that the Bible is wrong, can not hold against the Scripture once we investigat what it says, and not what Atheists think it says.
:cool:

What the bible says and what you think it means are your opinion.  You have no facts to back up your opinion; but you are free to believe in any fiction you wish.  Don't expect me to follow you into your delusion.

Atheists and theists are both stuck on consistency (thanks Greeks).  Reality isn't rational, isn't consistent.  If reality is divine ... then G-d isn't rational either, whether you choose to acknowledge G-d or not.

Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2018, 12:45:32 PM
Atheists and theists are both stuck on consistency (thanks Greeks).  Reality isn't rational, isn't consistent.  If reality is divine ... then G-d isn't rational either, whether you choose to acknowledge G-d or not.

No, you are the one who isn't rational--your god, G-d, gods or supernatural entity is simply a fiction.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 20, 2018, 01:18:28 PM
No, you are the one who isn't rational--your god, G-d, gods or supernatural entity is simply a fiction.

You are Vulcan then.  Go back to your home world, devil eared one!

Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2018, 01:21:03 PM
You are Vulcan then.  Go back to your home world, devil eared one!

There is as much proof for Vulcan as there is for you god.  If I could only just believe...............................

Well, according to  1Corinthians 14:33 "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

For someone who's not the author of confusion his word is the most confusing work ever written. If not there wouldn't be 33,000 different sects of Christianity, all claiming to be based on "God's word." But of course no God ever wrote any part of the Bible, only confused humans did.

But God also is not the author of peace, either:


Matthew 10:34-37 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."


Luke 12:51-53
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

If god exists, @Mousetrap , why can't i find my fucking car keys?

Figure that one out, dumbass

People don't really have faith in God, they have faith in those who have convinced them of God's existence.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 20, 2018, 01:36:17 PM
There is as much proof for Vulcan as there is for you god.  If I could only just believe...............................

No ... just competing memes.  Shadow boxing, with spirits who are mere shadows of men.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 20, 2018, 01:42:23 PM
Well, according to  1Corinthians 14:33 "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

For someone who's not the author of confusion his word is the most confusing work ever written. If not there wouldn't be 33,000 different sects of Christianity, all claiming to be based on "God's word." But of course no God ever wrote any part of the Bible, only confused humans did.

Paul was definitely a Jewish heretic, who never knew a historical Jesus.  He was trained by gnostics in Damascus (and probably Petra as well).  His home town had Heracles (who descended to the underworld and returned with Ceberus) as its mascot.

Wow Mousetrap.  Getting all literalist on us eh?  Do you have children?  Do you beat them black and blue to cleanse the sin?  Do you make sure your slaves obey your commands?  Lived in a fish for a few days and got burped up?  Talked to any donkeys?

Cripes.  Just stop. 

I often use this quote when confronted by believers in the literal "word of God."

Quote from: Mark TwainYou believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 20, 2018, 08:16:15 PM
I often use this quote when confronted by believers in the literal "word of God."

Love Twain.  It has been awhile for me, but have you read Letters From Earth?  It is written by satan to Michael in heaven; satan was banished from heaven for a thousand years or a celestial day.  It is a great read!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 20, 2018, 08:32:54 AM
This is what you will find in the Bible about the count of the men in Israel and Judah
How many fighting men were found in Israel?
<snip>
Hu, the Bible describes the exact amount of soldiers in Israel pulled up for battle! And you thought it was an error.

Numerical alchemy. You just kept adding factors like your commanders until you got the right number. Why not add the palace gardeners and cooks to your roster?

Here's the big clue why this number is bullshit:
Xerxes I marched on and nearly conquered Greece with an army about as big as David's. The Achaemenid Empire stretched from India to Asia minor (Turkey). If David's Israel was able to field an army this strong, then there would literally be no stopping them from conquering the entire region. Instead, Babylon (BTW, the direct predescessor to the Achaemenid Empire) considered the Isrealites a nuisance instead of a credible threat.

Furthermore, the Persian Immortals were the standing army and imperial guard to Xerxes I, and they were 10,000 strong. That's a standing army. 10,000 soldiers for ~5,500,000 km², compared to Israel's (and Judea's) supposed 300,000 soldiers for 20,770 km², and we're to believe that this little podunk nation had a standing army of 300,000 men, about 30 times larger than the standing army of Xerxes?

No, more like 100 imperial guards/standing army for both Israel and Judea, which makes hash of your estimations, even if we believe that there were actually 800,000 battle-ready men on less than 20,770 km² of near-desert land.

A smaller clue is that it's EXACTLY 1,100,000 men total. Not approximate, exact. Really? There was no hundred and something people remaining, making it not exactly 1,100,000 men? Rubbish.

And obviously you think 1,100,000 is an exact number, otherwise, you wouldn't have jumped through your numerical hoops to get one.

Quote
But lets continue with the count of Judah!
How many fighting men were found in Judah?
<snip>
Wow, the Bible describes exactly the amount of soldiers in Judah also!

Again, you have a permanent army that is many times that of the much, much larger Achaemenid Empire not a few centuries later. And that makes for an additional 1,600,000 man army in combined forces. You can easily conquer any other nation in the region with an army this big.

No, these numbers simply aren't credible. Small nation states like Israel were simply incapable of fielding armies this large. I find it more credible that some scribe added a few zeroes along the way to make David's army appear more impressive than it was originally.

There's also the fact that Joab would have submitted only one report to David. His number would either be the 1,100,000 figure or the 800,000 figure, not both. So one of these passages is incorrect. If Joab submitted the former, he would not have included the "standing armies" number, because that would be all the men of Israel. If Joab submitted the latter, then he would have either noted that the "standing army" was such-and-such, or simply would have let it remain unsaid. Either way, he did not state the 1,100,000 figure.

This is the real contradiction. One of the sets of figures attributed to Joab was inaccurate.

Quote
What now?

Nothing. You're not going to make me believe that either number of soldiers is actually accurate to the real situation in Israel at that time, if it were ever an semi-accurate account in the first place. 1,600,000 soldiers was an IMMENSE force in ancient times, and a 370,000 strong permanent army is not really credible for a nation that small. Not when you're boasting an army a size that would make Xerxes blush.

Quote from: ferdmonger on July 20, 2018, 08:02:34 PM
Wow Mousetrap.  Getting all literalist on us eh?  Do you have children?  Do you beat them black and blue to cleanse the sin?  Do you make sure your slaves obey your commands?  Lived in a fish for a few days and got burped up?  Talked to any donkeys?

Cripes.  Just stop.

We call slaves ... employees today in the US, except for the 14 year old girls ;-(

Never trust numbers from people who thought pi was "3.0".

Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 04:15:20 AM
Never trust numbers from people who thought pi was "3.0".

Without early math, there would be no later math.  Never trust a mathematician who runs a new age cult (Pythagoras).

Quote from: Baruch on July 21, 2018, 04:19:24 AM
Without early math, there would be no later math.  Never trust a mathematician who runs a new age cult (Pythagoras).

Proof that you trust religion over science...

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 20, 2018, 08:33:05 PM
Love Twain.  It has been awhile for me, but have you read Letters From Earth?  It is written by satan to Michael in heaven; satan was banished from heaven for a thousand years or a celestial day.  It is a great read!

I have read that! But it's been maybe a couple of decades. I'd love to come across it again, I'd definitely give it another read.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 21, 2018, 01:16:25 PM
I have read that! But it's been maybe a couple of decades. I'd love to come across it again, I'd definitely give it another read.

I would, but I would get annoyed feeling sympathetic to a fictional Satan as to a fictional God. 

Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 01:19:17 PM
I would, but I would get annoyed feeling sympathetic to a fictional Satan as to a fictional God.

Can't get into any books more interesting than the Yellow Pages?

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 21, 2018, 01:16:25 PM
I have read that! But it's been maybe a couple of decades. I'd love to come across it again, I'd definitely give it another read.

Yeah, me too.  It was one of the first anti-christian books I'd read.  Loved it.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 01:19:17 PM
I would, but I would get annoyed feeling sympathetic to a fictional Satan as to a fictional God.

You would love it, Cavebear.  It is Twain simply using Satan to lay bear many of the idiocies of christianity, but only as Twain can.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 21, 2018, 02:00:43 PM
Yeah, me too.  It was one of the first anti-christian books I'd read.  Loved it.

I just found it on-line:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/twain/letearth.htm

I don't know how much time I'll have to read it, but I can do a bit each day, I hope.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 21, 2018, 02:06:21 PM
I just found it on-line:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/twain/letearth.htm

I don't know how much time I'll have to read it, but I can do a bit each day, I hope.

Great.  Think I still have a copy but it has been so long since I've seen it; may have given it away, tho.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 21, 2018, 02:00:43 PM
Yeah, me too.  It was one of the first anti-christian books I'd read.  Loved it.

Some people follow 21st century celebrities (Trump) others follow 19th century celebrities (Twain).  I like Twain a lot better.\\

His actual politics matches yours ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain

My favorite work of his is ... The Mysterious Stranger .. which was made into a live action video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBwgkhNIKA

it was also mentioned in the clay-mation "Adventures of Mark Twain".

I think my favorite Twain is probably the War Prayer:

https://warprayer.org/

Quote from: Baruch on July 21, 2018, 02:20:25 PM
Some people follow 21st century celebrities (Trump) others follow 19th century celebrities (Twain).  I like Twain a lot better.\\

His actual politics matches yours ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain

My favorite work of his is ... The Mysterious Stranger .. which was made into a live action video

it was also mentioned in the clay-mation "Adventures of Mark Twain".

Yeah, Twain does match my politics--which is why I like him so much, I guess.  I've read most of his stuff, but not that one.  I guess I have a task to follow up on now.  My fav is still Letters From Earth.  I live a couple of hours from Angels Camp and have been there several time--but I have yet to catch the frog jumping contest yet.

I was wondering whether they still have frog jumping contests, so I looked it up, and apparently they do!

https://www.frogtown.org/untitled-cz6x

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 21, 2018, 02:35:38 PM
I was wondering whether they still have frog jumping contests, so I looked it up, and apparently they do!

https://www.frogtown.org/untitled-cz6x

Mark Twain slept here, not George Washington ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#/media/File:Mark_Twain_Cabin_Exterior_MVC-082X.jpg

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 21, 2018, 02:23:25 PM
I think my favorite Twain is probably the War Prayer:

https://warprayer.org/

The US Civil War was absolutely a Christian war.  The Abolitionists were profoundly religious people, as were their opponents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy6AOGRsR80

Though Karl Marx did support the Union, as a British subject, as London correspondent for the NY Times ... for his own irreligious reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxhde_zWCjs

Not the most famous Confederate song, but intended to be the new national hymn ... sounds rather Baptist to me.

The American Revolution, War of 1812 and Civil War made the US what it is, great national traumas.  G-d Bless America, and defeat to all our opponents, and victory to us and all our allies.  Yes, America is imperfect ... make it better or go away.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 20, 2018, 03:55:40 PM
If god exists, @Mousetrap , why can't i find my fucking car keys?

Figure that one out, dumbass

I figured it out!
He's playing a prank on you!
:cool:

Nice summary of atheist positions ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIok6o4PXKQ

I am a theist that agrees with all 10, but then I am a "heretic".

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 20, 2018, 01:42:23 PM
Well, according to  1Corinthians 14:33 "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

For someone who's not the author of confusion his word is the most confusing work ever written. If not there wouldn't be 33,000 different sects of Christianity, all claiming to be based on "God's word." But of course no God ever wrote any part of the Bible, only confused humans did.

You should actually add one more Christian faith.
Atheism!
The two Straw man arguments posed by you are .
No 1 (2 folded)
1. You see, all these Christian denominations are not, as you would like it to be perceived as each and every one totally different, but very much the same.
They all believe in the Bible, the crucifixion , the Resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. But, obvious an atheist will call Mormon, JW, and Unitarian "Christian" to further their confusion to sooth their concience!
2. Since when are different denominations evidence of Biblical inerrancy?
Number 2
1. Christians have never claimed that God sort of dictated the Bible, as Muslims claim about the Quran.
This will be delusion, because we know that the Bible contains a record of Prophets, Historical events surrounding prophets' life, as well as a recording of the Words of God spoken to prophets. So where did you get the notion that the Bible is 100% only the words of God?
You are confusing Islam and Christianity.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 20, 2018, 01:49:10 PM
But God also is not the author of peace, either:


Matthew 10:34-37 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Another straw man attack.
Do you realize that what Jesus here spoke here has nothing to do with calling Christians up into violence?
What you have here is the way your parents, siblings, friends, children and countrymen will treat Christians when they reveal that they will not worship any other god, such as the Roman gods, but Jesus. You deliberately went and accuse God of violence in shortsightedness. And what Jesus said here was exactly what happened. The Roman empire had more than 2 million Christians slaughtered in 300 years, because they refused to worship the Greco Roman religions.
Their parents, children, spouses, friends and families thought they did God a favour when they handed these people over the the authorities to be tortured and murdered.
And If you want to accuse God for allowing this violence to these people, you really should try to find out why God allowed this to happen.
And, what difference are you and these people that would like to see Christians killed in your utopia of atheism. I hope you do not under-scribe the same mentality.

Quote from: Unbeliever linkLuke 12:51-53
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

And the wonder of it all is this:
Why this hatred towards people that simply say they will worship Jesus only.
These persecutors hated the fact that Christians did not participate in their temple worship, temple prostitution, speaking out against theft, list, murder, torture, lies.....and so on.
And now you want to put guilt on God for this?
Naaa, please tell me why you hate the teachings of Jesus, before you accuse him as you did here.
He did nothing to you, but ....(I refrained from preaching the Gospel to you)
:cool:

Quote from: ferdmonger on July 20, 2018, 08:02:34 PM
Wow Mousetrap.  Getting all literalist on us eh?  Do you have children?  Do you beat them black and blue to cleanse the sin?  Do you make sure your slaves obey your commands?  Lived in a fish for a few days and got burped up?  Talked to any donkeys?

Cripes.  Just stop.

And some more Straw Men attacks with total disregard for any investigation on the facts.
Yes I have children, No I do not beat them,  God never instructed us to treat them this way, and Jesus actually mentions that angels reports daily to how we treat children. As for slavery, never does YHWH allow slavery. I made a study about the Bible and slavery, and you will be surprised to see that this allegation is one of ignorance, and not what YHWH wants.
I find your running from one allegation to the next as evidence that you do not want to hear what the Bible says, but only what you want to create as some sort of impression on what you thing the Bible should and should not say.
Talking Donkeys?
It was not a donkey talking, but an angel.
Guess what the result is about Baalam and Baalak on this narrative that was written in the Bible alone for more than 3 500 years.
Archaeological evidence was unearthed where Baalam's advice was recorded to the people who hired him to curse Israel.
Do I say that this now proves the Bible true?
No, It simply proves that the criticism about a donkey talking should be better handled as just mythological stories for atheists to laugh at.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 21, 2018, 02:06:21 PM
I just found it on-line:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/twain/letearth.htm

I don't know how much time I'll have to read it, but I can do a bit each day, I hope.

Say you!
I loved the book.
Great satire.
Have you ever read CS Lewis.
Mere Christianity!
Great facts!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 09:12:50 AM
Another straw man attack.
Do you realize that what Jesus here spoke here has nothing to do with calling Christians up into violence?
What you have here is the way your parents, siblings, friends, children and countrymen will treat Christians when they reveal that they will not worship any other god, such as the Roman gods, but Jesus. You deliberately went and accuse God of violence in shortsightedness. And what Jesus said here was exactly what happened. The Roman empire had more than 2 million Christians slaughtered in 300 years, because they refused to worship the Greco Roman religions.
Their parents, children, spouses, friends and families thought they did God a favour when they handed these people over the the authorities to be tortured and murdered.
And If you want to accuse God for allowing this violence to these people, you really should try to find out why God allowed this to happen.
And, what difference are you and these people that would like to see Christians killed in your utopia of atheism. I hope you do not under-scribe the same mentality.
And the wonder of it all is this:
Why this hatred towards people that simply say they will worship Jesus only.
These persecutors hated the fact that Christians did not participate in their temple worship, temple prostitution, speaking out against theft, list, murder, torture, lies.....and so on.
And now you want to put guilt on God for this?
Naaa, please tell me why you hate the teachings of Jesus, before you accuse him as you did here.
He did nothing to you, but ....(I refrained from preaching the Gospel to you)
:cool:

I'm certainly not accusing God of any of this, since God doesn't exist. No more than I would accuse Santa Claus of not bringing me any Christmas presents, since Santa Claus certainly does not exist.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:20:36 AM
Say you!
I loved the book.
Great satire.
Have you ever read CS Lewis.
Mere Christianity!
Great facts!

Yeah, I've read it, but it was more then 30 years ago, so I don't remember it well. I'd consider reading it again if I had the time, but I doubt that I'll have the time any time soon.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:20:36 AMHave you ever read CS Lewis.
Mere Christianity!
Great facts!

Imo, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was more grounded in reality.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 08:44:36 AM
You should actually add one more Christian faith.
Atheism!

Atheism is a philosophical position about a single claim. It doesn't even approach the status of a 'faith', let alone christian faith.

Quote
1. You see, all these Christian denominations are not, as you would like it to be perceived as each and every one totally different, but very much the same.
They all believe in the Bible, the crucifixion , the Resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. But, obvious an atheist will call Mormon, JW, and Unitarian "Christian" to further their confusion to sooth their concience!

Well, are Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians christians?

Mormons believe in all the Bible stuff, as far as it goes; they just tack on more cosmology and a few scriptures not recognized by you lot.

Jehovah's Witnesses have their own Bible, but it's not as if their bible is not based on non-biblical sources. While they have some rather extreme views not concordant with your own, they do believe that Jesus died and will come back. That's why they knock on your door in those dippy monkey suits.

Unitarians are more difficult to pin down, because while they do believe in the Bible, they don't believe in its inerrancy because they realize that the authors of the Bible were human and could be in error. I also find no evidence that Unitarianism means that Unitarians cannot believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection, or ascention of Jesus. "Unitarian" is not a designation of a particular religion or branch, but a whole movement of denominations I would call "Christian."

So I don't see any problem with lumping in these people with Christians. Their beliefs are not out of line with the normal variance of belief in Christian denominations. You fellas argue over more divisive stuff, yet you all still call yourself Christians.

Quote2. Since when are different denominations evidence of Biblical inerrancy?

They are evidence of at least Biblical vaguarity. The fact that you can all read much the same text and come up with so many disparate opinions on what is important for salvation is a good sign that someone is using your Bible as a ventriloquist dummy.

Quote
Number 2
1. Christians have never claimed that God sort of dictated the Bible, as Muslims claim about the Quran.

You have obviously never met some of the more fundamentalist twits I have encountered. I have heard people declare, and heard with my own two little miko ears, that they believed that the Bible was dictated by God. "That's why they cawl it 'God's Word,' rahght?"

So, yeah, don't pretend to speak for all Christians when you claim that they "have never" claimed that the Bible was dictated by God. Opinions on that very much vary.

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 23, 2018, 05:20:28 PM
Imo, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was more grounded in reality.

All the novels of CS Lewis and the bible have one profound thing in common--they are all works of fiction.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 23, 2018, 06:36:13 PM
All the novels of CS Lewis and the bible have one profound thing in common--they are all works of fiction.

Yes, and literature critics will argue over their merit.  Sorry Constantine chose Jewish literature as his hobby.  Then y'all could complain about some other fiction that was used to bolster a terrible tyranny.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 23, 2018, 06:32:53 PM
Atheism is a philosophical position about a single claim. It doesn't even approach the status of a 'faith', let alone christian faith.

Why then do you believe in it?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 23, 2018, 06:32:53 PM

Well, are Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians christians?

Mormons believe in all the Bible stuff, as far as it goes; they just tack on more cosmology and a few scriptures not recognized by you lot.

Wrong again.
The Mormons does not believe in the Bible at all.
They believe in the Book of Mormon that was a "Revelation by the angel Moroni" to Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon also deny that the Bible is correct.
The only reason why the Mormons claim the Bible is not true, and therefore totally corrupted, is that the Book of Mormon is in total contrast to everything the Bible says.
No Mormon will read the Bible.

Quote from: Hakurei ReimuJehovah's Witnesses have their own Bible, but it's not as if their bible is not based on non-biblical sources. While they have some rather extreme views not concordant with your own, they do believe that Jesus died and will come back. That's why they knock on your door in those dippy monkey suits.

Wrong again.
The terminology Christian actually denotes the worshiper of Jesus.
JW's do not believe in the Trinity, Jesus as God as the Word of YHWH, the Resurrection.
Therefore, on the 3 accounts of being a christian, they by default are only using the name Christian.

Quote from: Hakurei ReimuUnitarians are more difficult to pin down, because while they do believe in the Bible, they don't believe in its inerrancy because they realize that the authors of the Bible were human and could be in error. I also find no evidence that Unitarianism means that Unitarians cannot believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection, or ascention of Jesus. "Unitarian" is not a designation of a particular religion or branch, but a whole movement of denominations I would call "Christian."

However, they do not believe in the Trinity, and Jesus being divine.
They have one of 3 right.

Quote from: Hakurei ReimuSo I don't see any problem with lumping in these people with Christians. Their beliefs are not out of line with the normal variance of belief in Christian denominations. You fellas argue over more divisive stuff, yet you all still call yourself Christians.
They are evidence of at least Biblical vaguarity. The fact that you can all read much the same text and come up with so many disparate opinions on what is important for salvation is a good sign that someone is using your Bible as a ventriloquist dummy.
You have obviously never met some of the more fundamentalist twits I have encountered. I have heard people declare, and heard with my own two little miko ears, that they believed that the Bible was dictated by God. "That's why they cawl it 'God's Word,' rahght?"

So, yeah, don't pretend to speak for all Christians when you claim that they "have never" claimed that the Bible was dictated by God. Opinions on that very much vary.

To perceive Unitarians, Mormons and JW's as Christian, is as good as to claim Atheism a sect.
If one is incapable to distinguish between Christian and non Christian, on the grounds of believing in Jesus as God, and the Trinity by default because Jesus is God, then one errors in mixing all religions in one pot, and elevating Atheism to a level of observation of "all religions that is the same".
This is where I find atheism. Thinking because they can claim all religions is the same, they have an argument against the Bible.
Well, you do not, and are opening a hole as wide as an wagon can turn, for me to pass through.

If most atheists in the US are former Christians, then yes, they should be considered a Church Of Former Christians Who Didn't Convert To Anything Else.  Not all people here fit that category, but it works for some.  The only ones who ever never part of any religion, are truly free of any unconscious religious bias.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 20, 2018, 08:08:58 AM
Let me give you one such a contradiction

Let me give you another :

Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Go drink a litre of sulphuric acid.   Or go play with a few king cobras.   Post the results of your findings here.

Quote from: Jason78 on July 24, 2018, 04:47:57 PM
Let me give you another :

Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Go drink a litre of sulphuric acid.   Or go play with a few king cobras.   Post the results of your findings here.

Now, now, you don't test god.

...except for that one time where they did.  And probably a couple of other times.

1 Kings 18:22 Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fireâ€"he is God.”

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 24, 2018, 10:48:32 AM
Why then do you believe in it?

I don't. It's the philosophical position I have taken, due to the complete lack of evidence for any gods, including the Abrahamic god. "Atheist" is simply a label indicating that I hold this position. I don't have to believe in atheism to be atheist, any more than I have to believe in humanity to be human.

Now, you've been told this before, yet you still characterize atheism as a belief. You, sir, are a rude person.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 24, 2018, 11:05:57 AM
Wrong again.
The Mormons does not believe in the Bible at all.
They believe in the Book of Mormon that was a "Revelation by the angel Moroni" to Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon also deny that the Bible is correct.

Wrong. They say that the Bible is incomplete. That is different from not being correct. I mean, why do they have their own bible translation based on the original scriptures if they didn't believe in it? They wouldn't. They'd just say that the Bible is wrong and be done with it.

Quote
The only reason why the Mormons claim the Bible is not true, and therefore totally corrupted, is that the Book of Mormon is in total contrast to everything the Bible says.

There is nothing in their additional book that contradicts what is said in the Bible. It's just a new interpretation of that Bible.

So, it's just a No True Scottsman fallacy.

Quote
Wrong again.
The terminology Christian actually denotes the worshiper of Jesus.
JW's do not believe in the Trinity, Jesus as God as the Word of YHWH, the Resurrection.

I've read their literature, and the only thing true here is that they don't believe in the Trinity, and hence, that Jesus was God. They do, however, think that Jesus was "the Word" of YHWH in his pre-human existence, and that he did resurrect and ascended to heaven. So, Jesus was worthy of worship as the Word of God, and acts as the mediator between God and humanity, Jesus's eternal children; they just don't think of Jesus as God himself.

Trinitarianism was not a part of your requirements for being a Christian, nor was any techincal divinity required. So, Moving the Goalposts fallacy.

Quote
However, they do not believe in the Trinity, and Jesus being divine.
They have one of 3 right.

Again, moving the goalposts. Your Christianity definition required neither a Trinity nor a divine Jesus.

Quote
To perceive Unitarians, Mormons and JW's as Christian, is as good as to claim Atheism a sect.

Well, if you're going to call atheism a religion, then I demand all the rights and privilages thereof, including building my monuments right next to those Ten Commandments monuments you guys keep insisting on putting up, and putting Monday school in Sunday school.

Quote
If one is incapable to distinguish between Christian and non Christian, on the grounds of believing in Jesus as God, and the Trinity by default because Jesus is God, then one errors in mixing all religions in one pot, and elevating Atheism to a level of observation of "all religions that is the same".

Again, No True Scottsman. I don't consider either a divine Jesus or a Trinity to be critical beliefs in order to be called Christian. Unitarians of all sects, and there are a lot of them â€"including the first ever Protestant sect (Lutherians)â€" would take umbrage at you taking away their Christian cards.

So, yeah, you don't get to decide who is Christian and who isn't.

Quote
This is where I find atheism. Thinking because they can claim all religions is the same, they have an argument against the Bible.
Well, you do not, and are opening a hole as wide as an wagon can turn, for me to pass through.

Only if you're the road-runner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X73gXXFPu1I

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 24, 2018, 10:48:32 AM
Why then do you believe in it?

Atheism is a LACK of a claim.  You can't really comprehend that, can you? 

Would you have a problem if I said I don't belief in framulgramits"?  Its like that.  Do you believe in Odin or Orisis?  Its like that too.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 08:29:09 AM
Atheism is a LACK of a claim.  You can't really comprehend that, can you? 

Would you have a problem if I said I don't belief in framulgramits"?  Its like that.  Do you believe in Odin or Orisis?  Its like that too.

Odin or Orisis... no evidence!
YHWH, lots of evidence!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 10:30:43 AM
Odin or Orisis... no evidence!
YHWH, lots of evidence!

Oh PLEASE DO give us the evidence OF THE DIFFERENCES!  I can't wait.  I need the mental exercise to respond... 

This should be GOOD!

Athests' Biblical contradictions list. (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,5.msg16.html#msg16)
OK, so lets continue with the list of so called contradictions as an Atheist told me to go and look at as evidence that the Bible is false.
I posted one as evidence to show that the so called contradiction on the count of the soldiers of Israel and Judah was wrong, and I will now work down the list.
Might take a year, but I want to test the accusations to ensure that no atheist can tell me that the Bible is wrong.

Lets get going with number 241, 242, 243, and 244.
This all has to do with the incapability of Atheists that cant read what the Bible says.

241 Contradictory Creation accounts:
What this accusation claim is that there are 2 different creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2.
The composer of this so called contradiction carries on to say that Gen 1 describes one Creation story where God created everything in 7 Days, but in Genesis chap 2 it gives a second account of the chronological events.
242. Were Plants created before man?
243. Were the foul created from water?
244. Were animals created before man?

Well, this is not so much a contradiction, but the poor reading of these 2 chapters.
When I initially researched on this claim, I immediately saw the problem, or shall I say, no problem.

These 2 chapters are not a chronology following each other!
Chapter I describes the creation of the 7 days, and chapter 2 the events of the 6th day when God created man!
I think the firs time someone compiled this so called contradiction was with  Julius Wellhausen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Wellhausen)

When we then read the 2 chapters, we find that God describes the 7 days, and discuss the 6th day in detail.
In chapter 1 God made animals and then Adam.
In chapter 2 God describes how he make Adam, then again created animals and brought it to Adam to name them.
Different animals, different day.
No contradiction.

Plants were created on the 3rd day, but God planted a garden for Adam on the 6th day.
The plants was still not mature on the 6th day, that's why God made a garden.
Different plants, different day.
No contradiction.

In the first chapter God made foul from water, on the 2nd day he made the foul He brought to Adam, form soil.

Different animals, different day.
No contradiction.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 11:05:32 AM
Athests' Biblical contradictions list. (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,5.msg16.html#msg16)
OK, so lets continue with the list of so called contradictions as an Atheist told me to go and look at as evidence that the Bible is false.
I posted one as evidence to show that the so called contradiction on the count of the soldiers of Israel and Judah was wrong, and I will now work down the list.
Might take a year, but I want to test the accusations to ensure that no atheist can tell me that the Bible is wrong.

Lets get going with number 241, 242, 243, and 244.
This all has to do with the incapability of Atheists that cant read what the Bible says.

241 Contradictory Creation accounts:
What this accusation claim is that there are 2 different creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2.
The composer of this so called contradiction carries on to say that Gen 1 describes one Creation story where God created everything in 7 Days, but in Genesis chap 2 it gives a second account of the chronological events.
242. Were Plants created before man?
243. Were the foul created from water?
244. Were animals created before man?

Well, this is not so much a contradiction, but the poor reading of these 2 chapters.
When I initially researched on this claim, I immediately saw the problem, or shall I say, no problem.

These 2 chapters are not a chronology following each other!
Chapter I describes the creation of the 7 days, and chapter 2 the events of the 6th day when God created man!
I think the firs time someone compiled this so called contradiction was with  Julius Wellhausen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Wellhausen)

When we then read the 2 chapters, we find that God describes the 7 days, and discuss the 6th day in detail.
In chapter 1 God made animals and then Adam.
In chapter 2 God describes how he make Adam, then again created animals and brought it to Adam to name them.
Different animals, different day.
No contradiction.

Plants were created on the 3rd day, but God planted a garden for Adam on the 6th day.
The plants was still not mature on the 6th day, that's why God made a garden.
Different plants, different day.
No contradiction.

In the first chapter God made foul from water, on the 2nd day he made the foul He brought to Adam, form soil.

Different animals, different day.
No contradiction.

I knew this would be good.  I don't even care about the answers (none of which responded to my question about the differences BETWEEN various religions.  It's that you are obviously just getting this nonsense from some biblical site and you claim it as "your research"!

LOL!

Quote from: Jason78 on July 24, 2018, 04:47:57 PM
Let me give you another :

Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Go drink a litre of sulphuric acid.   Or go play with a few king cobras.   Post the results of your findings here.

Yeah the signs of a true believer!

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 25, 2018, 01:48:38 PM
Yeah the signs of a true believer!

Cracking UP!  I always smile when I read about a snake handler who dies handling poisonous snakes.  Cleans up the gene pool a little...

A very little - not nearly enough, but every little bit helps, I guess.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 25, 2018, 02:01:14 PM
A very little - not nearly enough, but every little bit helps, I guess.

Well, think of it this way.  At some point there was an animal that wasn't exactly a chicken,  But it had a mutation that would make the eggs a "chicken".  Now suppose it got grabbed by some lizard.  We wouldn't ever say "tastes like chicken" would we?    We might say "tastes like an arbut", but an arbut wouldn't exactly be a chicken.

Small changes can lead to big changes.  Ask a Mithraist.

I would if I could find any. I don't think there are any around here. :-)

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 25, 2018, 04:16:14 PM
I would if I could find any. I don't think there are any around here. :-)

QED...

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 04:17:51 PM
QED...

You both made Mithra sad.  Now you won't get inducted into the mystery religion where you have lots of bull blood poured over you.

Washed in the blood...of...bullshit.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 25, 2018, 10:57:23 PM
Washed in the blood...of...bullshit.

That was the general idea ... plus a Persianate Freemasonry.  Usually for Roman military officers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUdxy836WY4

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 25, 2018, 01:48:38 PM
Yeah the signs of a true believer!

I accept your challange.
Me and you both go and do what this verse tells us to do.
Lets see who survives.
You will die, and I will live, because I recognise what Jesus said, and you simply took this atheist claim as a problem of Christianity whare you supposedly have evidence that the Bible is wrong.

Let me demonstrate.
We will both stand in front of an audience.
We will challenge each other to do as what the Bible say (theoretically of course.)
You will refuse because you will say you do not believe in the Bible.
I will say, But I will do exactly as the Bible say, and I will survive!
You will say, do it you fool!
I will say, but you will have to admit that what you say is that if you are a christian, one can drink poison and survive!
You will say, YES.
I will reply, well it is my turn now.
You will pass me a cup of poison.
I will put it down.
You will laugh.
I will ask you why?
You will say, see, you do not believe in the Christian test!
I will reply.
But again!
You never read the Bible, now you buile a straw man test and think I have to follow your instructions.
You will be wondering what the check I am talking about?
I will help you in your ignorant state and will reply:
"Dont you know this was an instruction by Jesus to his Disciples?"
Did you not see Jesus gave these instructions to them, accompanied by these powers?"

You will say, but you are His disciple!
I will reply, I am not, even if I am, Jesus did not give these powers to me.
'Therefore, why dont you rather go and read what the Bible say, in stead of what atheist websites tells you what they think is in the Bible!"

Sorry pal, try again
Jesus did that on 2 occasions and only to his Apostles and Disciples.
Please go and read before you do this again.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 26, 2018, 07:53:18 AM
Let me demonstrate.
We will both stand in front of an audience.
We will challenge each other to do as what the Bible say (theoretically of course.)
You will refuse because you will say you do not believe in the Bible.

Yes, I believe that if one takes excessive amounts of poison and doesn't get treated for it, you will die, and I don't want to die yet.

Quote
I will say, But I will do exactly as the Bible say, and I will survive!
You will say, do it you fool!
I will say, but you will have to admit that what you say is that if you are a christian, one can drink poison and survive!
You will say, YES.
I will reply, well it is my turn now.
You will pass me a cup of poison.
I will put it down.
You will laugh.
I will ask you why?
You will say, see, you do not believe in the Christian test!
I will reply.
But again!
You never read the Bible, now you buile a straw man test and think I have to follow your instructions.
You will be wondering what the check I am talking about?
I will help you in your ignorant state and will reply:
"Dont you know this was an instruction by Jesus to his Disciples?"
Did you not see Jesus gave these instructions to them, accompanied by these powers?"

Me: "Are you saying that these powers were only to the Twelve? Then, lacking them, we cannot verify your claims and therefore any assertion of the bible's consistency based on this passage is worthless. It doesn't matter. It's just words on the page at this point, not even true or false, but undecidable. If God and the Bible cannot offer themselves up to be tested, then they are by definition not scientific.

"Yet, there are a lot of Christians who believe just that â€" who believe that if you sincerely believe in the Bible and have accepted Jesus as their lord and savior, that they would be able to do exactly as I had offered to you and live. Your Bible is not only unscientific, but also demonstrably dangerous. The way it is worded now, it is misleading. No amount of rhetorical gymnastics can dodge that point, not when so many of your brothers have taken the poison and died just as we say they would."

So far, the only solid claims you have made about science being consistent with the Bible have turned out to be wrong. The mudball earth is still not something that is justified by the science, so either you are wrong because you have misinterpreted the Bible or the Bible is unscientific because it doesn't match the science. The only people you claim could take the poison and live are long gone, and defies all of science.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 26, 2018, 07:53:18 AMdo as what the Bible say

G Man, is that you?

Mousetrap ... have you bathed in bull blood lately?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 26, 2018, 07:53:18 AM
"Dont you know this was an instruction by Jesus to his Disciples?"
Did you not see Jesus gave these instructions to them, accompanied by these powers?"

Addressed only to the disciples of Jesus? I don't think so:


Mar 16:17-18
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

This was not meant only for his disciple, but for "them that believe." That would include all who believe.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 26, 2018, 01:38:18 PM
Addressed only to the disciples of Jesus? I don't think so:


Mar 16:17-18
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

This was not meant only for his disciple, but for "them that believe." That would include all who believe.

There was no Pope for a long while, to retroject their anti-semitic dogma onto the early Church.

Belief is a confidence trick, of con artists.  But if you don't believe in what you can do, you will never start, what actually can be done.

In earliest Islam, cooperative Jews and Christians were considered faithful .. it is non-Abrahamic who were considered in-fidels (un-faithful).  Once the Caliphate really got going though, it was all about plunder and rape ... not about faith.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 26, 2018, 09:02:37 AM
Yes, I believe that if one takes excessive amounts of poison and doesn't get treated for it, you will die, and I don't want to die yet.
Me: "Are you saying that these powers were only to the Twelve? Then, lacking them, we cannot verify your claims and therefore any assertion of the bible's consistency based on this passage is worthless. It doesn't matter. It's just words on the page at this point, not even true or false, but undecidable. If God and the Bible cannot offer themselves up to be tested, then they are by definition not scientific.

Not only the 12, but also to the 70.
Please go and read the Bible.
What test?
Since when did Christians claim there is a Test to determine if the Bible is correct?
Another straw man!

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu"Yet, there are a lot of Christians who believe just that â€" who believe that if you sincerely believe in the Bible and have accepted Jesus as their lord and savior, that they would be able to do exactly as I had offered to you and live. Your Bible is not only unscientific, but also demonstrably dangerous. The way it is worded now, it is misleading. No amount of rhetorical gymnastics can dodge that point, not when so many of your brothers have taken the poison and died just as we say they would."

No "rhetorical gymnastics or dodging the point', since when are "a lot of Christians who believe just that" evidence of anything true or false in the Bible.
If someone sacrifices an animal thinking we should do it because it is in the OT, is the Bible wrong, or that person who misread what it said.
I dont allow interpretations from the Bible at all.
Just read what it says, and any child will agree that Jesus gave these miracles to those that "Believed", referring to the apostles that believed He rose from the dead.
See if you can find the verse, ..."and to those who believed(go to Strongs to get the tenses), this gifts will follow!"

Quote from: Hakurei ReimuSo far, the only solid claims you have made about science being consistent with the Bible have turned out to be wrong. The mudball earth is still not something that is justified by the science, so either you are wrong because you have misinterpreted the Bible or the Bible is unscientific because it doesn't match the science. The only people you claim could take the poison and live are long gone, and defies all of science.

And you are so demanding in your struggle to prove that the Earth was not a Mud ball earth, that not only did you deny any scientific discoveries that prove that the Earth was not a ball of burning magma; but you are so pre occupied that you still have to carry on on this thread.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 26, 2018, 01:38:18 PM
Addressed only to the disciples of Jesus? I don't think so:


Mar 16:17-18
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

This was not meant only for his disciple, but for "them that believe." That would include all who believe.

Wrong again.
The tense is the Aurist Greek, which is, "and to those that BELIEVED"
THOMAS OBVIOUSLY MISSED OUT!

Quote from: Baruch on July 26, 2018, 12:20:58 PM
Mousetrap ... have you bathed in bull blood lately?

Will Hillary-ous cow blood work?

The next so called Biblical contradictins which atheists posts as evidence that the Bible is not true.
Nullgod contradictions in the Bible (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,5.msg16.html#msg16)

246. Did Adam die on the exact day he ate the fruit?

Quote from: Gen 2:17
Yes
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
No
Gen 3:6
Quote
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband who was with her; and he did eat.
5:5
Quote
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Interesting that the atheist demands that Adam should die on the exact day he ate from the tree.
If, again, one reads superficially and disregard what tthe Bible said about Adam and eve, everything is possible to claim as a contradiction.

Now, take note of what you missed.
God created Adam and Eve :
Without any ageing process and immortal,
covered in a Body of light.

Once they sinned, they lost their immortality, and with the loss of the light covering their bodies, they realized they were naked for the first time.

This is why Jesus claimed that we will again have immortality and He came to destroy death so we can have everlasting life.
He was the second Adam, and we will be like him.

This is the gospel!

Now, when God said, You will surely die, Adam, after sinning, lost immortality, AND STARTED TO AGE!
and he did die!
You and I, are already busy dying, and as I sit here typing, I have about 3Kg dead cells in my skin alone. Billions of more cells in my body dies every hour. and we are nothing than a dying rotten half living corpse untill we are totally failing to continue to live.

Was this God's error to create us to die?
No, it was Adam and Eves mistake, and Satan's deception.
Therefore, this so called contradiction only made me realize that the Bible is still correct, and God did not create us to:
age, get cancer and disease, live with syndromes, Alzheimer, crippling effects, and sometimes suffering to death.

No, God made man to live forever with a glorious body covered with light without any sickness and ageing.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 27, 2018, 03:55:15 AM
Will Hillary-ous cow blood work?

Only an American would say that.  So there is nothing you could say about anything, that I could believe, given your claim of being South African.

Quote from: Baruch on July 27, 2018, 06:39:17 AM
Only an American would say that.  So there is nothing you could say about anything, that I could believe, given your claim of being South African.

I like you Ouboet.
Why dont you come and visit me.
The wife and I have a nice 4 bedroom house in Roodepoort, close to the cradle of humankind, 80 Km from Pretoria Voortrekker monument, 21 Km from the apartheids museum, Next to Soweto where you an your partner can go to visit the local shebeens to experience African culture.
I will then ensure you have a nice Braai, pap and sous you never had before.
Pap & Sous Braai (https://www.capetownmagazine.com/recipes/boerewors-pap-en-sous/106_22_11480)
Pap & Sous (http://bbqmasterclass.net/back-to-my-roots-pap-and-sauce-similiar-to-poleanta-and-tomato-suace/)

Think about it, you do not even have to pay for a hotel, but dont stay longer than 2 weeks.

I am serious.
We will sit next to a fire untill the early mornings talking about all the problems of the world.

Groetnis!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 27, 2018, 03:55:15 AM
Will Hillary-ous cow blood work?

And they say the right doesn't have any good comedians.

Quote from: Baruch on July 27, 2018, 06:39:17 AM
Only an American would say that.  So there is nothing you could say about anything, that I could believe, given your claim of being South African.

I almost forgot about that little tidbit. This guy has been lying ever since he got here.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 27, 2018, 08:05:39 AM
I like you Ouboet.
Why dont you come and visit me.
The wife and I have a nice 4 bedroom house in Roodepoort, close to the cradle of humankind, 80 Km from Pretoria Voortrekker monument, 21 Km from the apartheids museum, Next to Soweto where you an your partner can go to visit the local shebeens to experience African culture.
I will then ensure you have a nice Braai, pap and sous you never had before.
Pap & Sous Braai (https://www.capetownmagazine.com/recipes/boerewors-pap-en-sous/106_22_11480)
Pap & Sous (http://bbqmasterclass.net/back-to-my-roots-pap-and-sauce-similiar-to-poleanta-and-tomato-suace/)

Think about it, you do not even have to pay for a hotel, but dont stay longer than 2 weeks.

I am serious.
We will sit next to a fire untill the early mornings talking about all the problems of the world.

Groetnis!

Funny ... I have seen the TV show of the British couple that charm venomous snakes in South Africa ... did they charm you? ;-))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0035ODH-c

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 27, 2018, 11:04:05 AM
And they say the right doesn't have any good comedians.

There may be a good reason for that...

That mamba guy reminds me of "The Illustrated Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illustrated_Man)."

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 26, 2018, 07:53:18 AM
I accept your challange.
Me and you both go and do what this verse tells us to do.
Lets see who survives.
You will die, and I will live, because I recognise what Jesus said, and you simply took this atheist claim as a problem of Christianity whare you supposedly have evidence that the Bible is wrong.

Let me demonstrate.
We will both stand in front of an audience.
We will challenge each other to do as what the Bible say (theoretically of course.)
You will refuse because you will say you do not believe in the Bible.
I will say, But I will do exactly as the Bible say, and I will survive!
You will say, do it you fool!
I will say, but you will have to admit that what you say is that if you are a christian, one can drink poison and survive!
You will say, YES.
I will reply, well it is my turn now.
You will pass me a cup of poison.
I will put it down.
You will laugh.
I will ask you why?
You will say, see, you do not believe in the Christian test!
I will reply.
But again!
You never read the Bible, now you buile a straw man test and think I have to follow your instructions.
You will be wondering what the check I am talking about?
I will help you in your ignorant state and will reply:
"Dont you know this was an instruction by Jesus to his Disciples?"
Did you not see Jesus gave these instructions to them, accompanied by these powers?"

You will say, but you are His disciple!
I will reply, I am not, even if I am, Jesus did not give these powers to me.
'Therefore, why dont you rather go and read what the Bible say, in stead of what atheist websites tells you what they think is in the Bible!"

Sorry pal, try again
Jesus did that on 2 occasions and only to his Apostles and Disciples.
Please go and read before you do this again.

If the words in that book don't mean the things that they say.   Then why believe any of it?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 27, 2018, 03:22:52 AM
Not only the 12, but also to the 70.
Please go and read the Bible.

Who cares if it's twelve or seventy or 1700? They ain't here now.

Quote
What test?
Since when did Christians claim there is a Test to determine if the Bible is correct?
Another straw man!

Not a strawman. We were the ones proposing that a test is necessary to prove the Bible's claims. The fact that you didn't claim that there was is irrelevant. The fact that you can't or won't submit to the test is simply too bad for you, because it automatically means that your claims are not scientific.

Quote
No "rhetorical gymnastics or dodging the point', since when are "a lot of Christians who believe just that" evidence of anything true or false in the Bible.
If someone sacrifices an animal thinking we should do it because it is in the OT, is the Bible wrong, or that person who misread what it said.
I dont allow interpretations from the Bible at all.

Bullshit. Your whole argument about the veracity of the bible as an account of the beginning of the universe or life is completely interpretation.

Quote
Just read what it says, and any child will agree that Jesus gave these miracles to those that "Believed", referring to the apostles that believed He rose from the dead.
See if you can find the verse, ..."and to those who believed(go to Strongs to get the tenses), this gifts will follow!"

I agree it doesn't say that, but what is left unsaid is that if you are not a big-D Disciple, then those gifts will not follow. If god or Jesus Christ could do it once, either could do it again. So goes the Christian mindset.

Quote
And you are so demanding in your struggle to prove that the Earth was not a Mud ball earth, that not only did you deny any scientific discoveries that prove that the Earth was not a ball of burning magma; but you are so pre occupied that you still have to carry on on this thread.

You can keep repeating that line but it won't make it any more true. There is actually a wealth of evidence and scientific principles that prove the case of the hot proto-earth, and none of the scientific discoveries you have posted actually proves your case. The only thing it shows is lack of imagination.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 27, 2018, 03:22:52 AM
\
...
I dont allow interpretations from the Bible at all.
...

Note Mousetrap's effortless blend of hubris and lying. 

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 27, 2018, 10:06:41 PM
Note Mousetrap's effortless blend of hubris and lying.

Self delusion at least.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 27, 2018, 01:18:34 PM
There may be a good reason for that...

Creativity, breaking taboos, some degree of honesty and self-criticism, etc.

Quote from: Jason78 on July 27, 2018, 01:30:00 PM
If the words in that book don't mean the things that they say.   Then why believe any of it?

If any word in any book does not believe what you think it did, due to you not knowing what it said?
Is the book true?
Or are you wrong

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 27, 2018, 07:35:43 PM
Who cares if it's twelve or seventy or 1700? They ain't here now.

Exactly.

Quote from: Hakurei ReimuNot a strawman. We were the ones proposing that a test is necessary to prove the Bible's claims. The fact that you didn't claim that there was is irrelevant. The fact that you can't or won't submit to the test is simply too bad for you, because it automatically means that your claims are not scientific.

Then again, it there was a test in the Bible to test if Christians are worshiping the truth, it will not be the one you talk about.
Simply because that test is not a test, but gifts that Jesus gave to his disciples in person.
...So...a test you devided that is not a test is a ...
STRAWMAN!!!

Quote from: Hakurei ReimuBullshit. Your whole argument about the veracity of the bible as an account of the beginning of the universe or life is completely interpretation.

But then again, you forget that you had an interpretation which you used as evidence of the Biblical inaccuracy!
I simply showed you that what the Bible say is not what you said.
Actually, what the Bible say is what Kant wrote, which was what scientists found true as they discovered one after the other scientific fact that correlated with the Nebular theory.
You see, your interpretation..., my interpretation and what science found on our interpretations, made the Nebular theory and the Bible the victor.
Sorry for your defeat.

Quote from: Hakurei ReimuI agree it doesn't say that, but what is left unsaid is that if you are not a big-D Disciple, then those gifts will not follow. If god or Jesus Christ could do it once, either could do it again. So goes the Christian mindset.

And all I say is that what you refer to has nothing to do with a so called test to see if God exists.
It is a Straw-man which atheists concocted, in an attempt to sooth their conscience.
You will not believe the disgust i find with atheists when I challenge them on the "Christian test".
Muslims love to use this too, and when they realize I actually proved that they are wrong, their faces display utter disappointment when they learn that their bigest piece of evidence was actually burned out straw now reduced to ashes.
I love this argument.

Quote from: Hakurei ReimuYou can keep repeating that line but it won't make it any more true. There is actually a wealth of evidence and scientific principles that prove the case of the hot proto-earth, and none of the scientific discoveries you have posted actually proves your case. The only thing it shows is lack of imagination.

And all I will do is to refer back to the fact that science now discovered that the proto-planets was not any thing close to a Hadean existence.
Many Astro physicists  and Geologists are now engaging into studies on a cool and wet formation of the planets.
Check here=So, the Earth was wet in the beginning, sorry! (https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2014/09/15/early-earth-less-hellish/)

Nullgod contradiction # 248 (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,5.msg16.html#msg16)

Quote from: 248. Did Cain become a fugitive and a vagabond?
Yes
Gen 4:12
Quote
When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
No
Gen 4:17
Quote
And Cain knew his wife; And she concieved, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
[note: fugitives and vagabonds don't build cities]

Ok, so lets see what this so called contradiction is as Atheists wants Christians to believe.
In Gen 4:12 God says that Cain will never settle down.
In Gen 4: 17 it says that Cain built a city and named it after his son.

Duh?
Where does it say Cain settled down?
He built a city, and became almost 1 000 years old, so how does the atheist conclude that Cain settled down.

Oh, I missed out on the argument again.
They added the words"...[note: fugitives and vagabonds don't build cities]..."
Now I get it!

No, it is still an assumption!
A man who founded a city, and named to his son, will not be someone who settled in that city.
If Cain settled there, he would have surely called the city after himself.
How many cities on earth was founded, and the founder's name was used? Many.
In South Africa many cities was founded by the Voortrekkers, and named after them.
Not one named it after their child!

Therefore, the Atheist again had to put a "Note" into the Bible to show a contradiction.
Straw-man!!!
:cool:

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 03:03:53 AM
I figured it out!
He's playing a prank on you!

Ole god did a lot of that pranking....especially on his followers..always took them three times to beat the enemy. But hey, what says great and almighty god like letting 2/3rds of your followers die before you finally beat them infidels eh?  And he wonders why the jews were so hard to convince.....

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 29, 2018, 04:04:54 AM
Then again, it there was a test in the Bible to test if Christians are worshiping the truth, it will not be the one you talk about.
Simply because that test is not a test, but gifts that Jesus gave to his disciples in person.
...So...a test you devided that is not a test is a ...
STRAWMAN!!!

You are very quick to use that word. Christians have claimed that they would be able to pass the poison test and that doing so proves the truth of the Bible. That they are mistaken in that notion does not make it a strawman. That we turn around and pose the challenge to you does not make it a strawman either, because it's not actually a serious challenge we expect you to take up, but a demonstration that you cannot demonstrate that any part of the Bible is true, and you know it.

I don't care where the test comes from. If it comes from the Bible, cool. If it doesn't, okay. Show that some test (not necessarily this one) really indicates that the Bible is true, then do it. If you can't come up with a test, then I don't see how I should credit the Bible with any more truth than the Quran, the Rigveda, or Harry Potter.

Quote
But then again, you forget that you had an interpretation which you used as evidence of the Biblical inaccuracy!

I base my rejection of the Bible on the biblical adherents' continued inability to make their Bible square away with what science has discovered about the world, or indeed any verifiable claims at all past anything that would be mundanely possible. Except in its most mundane facts, accessible to the people who wrote it, there is not one demonstrated truth in the Bible. Your god is no use to me unless he's going to magic me up a sandwich.

Quote
I simply showed you that what the Bible say is not what you said.

And when you did that, it's STILL wrong.

Quote
Actually, what the Bible say is what Kant wrote, which was what scientists found true as they discovered one after the other scientific fact that correlated with the Nebular theory.

Your version of the nebular theory ignores the conservation of energy. If that's Kant's version, that doesn't change the fact that it ignores conservation of energy. Conservation of energy is a big deal. In the model you presented, matter simply accreted onto the earth without heating up, which means that untold millions of Joules of gravitational potential energy simply up and cease to exist.

No, that's not something that's going to be believed by any serious (that is, non-crank) physicist.

Even when the nebular theory was live, the Earth after being accreted was thought to be a hot, molten ball of magma for this very reason. You simply can't get that much matter from such a sparse thing like a nebula into something as compact as a planet as fast as it was thought to occur without it heating up. You just can't do it. The sun is thought to have ignited nuclear fusion from just such a process, with inner core temperatures of millions of degrees. The planets are going to experience a lesser version of this.

Immanuel Kant didn't know about energy. He was not a physicist but a philosopher. The first modern use of energy appeared not long after he died. Not knowing about the conservation of energy and the mechanical equivalent of heat is not his fault. In modern day, any theory will have to conserve energy to be seriously considered.

Quote
You see, your interpretation..., my interpretation and what science found on our interpretations, made the Nebular theory and the Bible the victor.
Sorry for your defeat.

Except that it's not you who decides my defeat, pumpkin. Science decides my defeat, and it is not on your side. If your "interpretation" is making energy disappear, and it appears that it does, it's not going to be thought true by any serious scientist.

You also talk about the nebular theory as if your theory is the only one in existence that involves a nebula. While the solar system did form from a nebula, when I, or anyone else, say that your nebular model is dead, they don't mean the solar system didn't form from a nebula, but rather the nebula didn't form as you describe. Your model ignores the input of the nascent sun into the system, the importance of an early generation of protoplanets, and to the subsequent formation of the rocky inner planets. Your nebular theory does not take into account the gravitational potential energy that will certainly cause coalescing planets larger than Mercury to inevidably heat up to the melting point of rock, and past the vaporization point of water. Your nebular theory makes a vastly different prediction about the composition of Earth than what we find. The protoplanetary disk, with planetesimals, melt-induced protoplanet differetiation, and an inner system depleted of its volitiles by an igniting sun (called the Solar Nebular Disk Model) is the only one that explains all the features we find in the solar system.

Kant's nebular theory is dead. Your nebular theory is dead on arrival. It doesn't look anything like the modern theory.

Quote
And all I say is that what you refer to has nothing to do with a so called test to see if God exists.
It is a Straw-man which atheists concocted, in an attempt to sooth their conscience.

If anything, it's Christians who "concocted" this particular test. Nobody ever told them to play with venomous snakes or drink poison. They do it anyway, and they die. We wish they'd stop, for they are needless deaths.

Quote
You will not believe the disgust i find with atheists when I challenge them on the "Christian test".

We only "challenge" you because we know you won't do it. If we did, we'd ask you to seek mental help instead.

Quote
Muslims love to use this too, and when they realize I actually proved that they are wrong, their faces display utter disappointment when they learn that their bigest piece of evidence was actually burned out straw now reduced to ashes.
I love this argument.

Yeah, but it won't work and doesn't work on us. In truth, my preparation of the test won't even get this far, or I would hand you an unpoisoned cup (because I've lied about the contents of the cup), which I would reveal should you actually be stupid enough to drink (by drinking it myself), and advise you to seek mental help. The point of the demonstration would be that faith won't save you and you know it.

If you acknowledge that, then this test isn't for you.

Quote
And all I will do is to refer back to the fact that science now discovered that the proto-planets was not any thing close to a Hadean existence.
Many Astro physicists  and Geologists are now engaging into studies on a cool and wet formation of the planets.

Name some. Name an astrophysicist who says, in a peer review paper, that the Earth formed as a wet ball. Not, "There was a period of time in the past that the Earth was cooler than we thought," but, "The Earth was never in a molten state, and its consistency was that of mud through its accretion, with liquid water and all that implies." Find that, and you might have a leg to stand on, and I'd be very interested in such a paper because it would actually involve some really cool science (like where all the gravitational potential energy from accretion went). Until then, it's just your trying to use the scientific literature as a ventriloquist dummy.

Quote
Check here=So, the Earth was wet in the beginning, sorry! (https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2014/09/15/early-earth-less-hellish/)

I still see your lips moving. We've been over the zircons, and they do not imply what you want them to imply because there's a good 100 million year gap between the coalesence of the Earth finishing and the formation of those zircons, and that time is plenty enough for Earth to cool to ordinary temperatures complete with liquid water.

You have taken an article intended to communicate that the Earth became very Earth-like during the early Hadean and took it to mean that the Earth was very Earth-like throughout all of the Hadean, and before the Hadean. No, the data doesn't show that. The news article linked is not a peer-review article, and as such, it has taken a few liberties to drum up interest, and I suppose that's worked. The peer review article linked is much more circumspect.

Hell, given that a zircon has to FORM in magma (they form in melts, and their melting point is around 2500 °C), is proof enough that your mud ball earth has quite a bit missing from it.

So far, you are acting to type, even down to reiterating old, discredited lines of argument and misrepresentation of the real science, as well as not addressing serious problems in your own model, despite your crowings of "knowing the science." If you think that any matter can fall from several planetary radii away onto even a small planet without picking up a lot of kinetic energy that turns into heat energy upon impact, then no, you don't know the science.

Quote from: MousetrapActually, what the Bible say is what Kant wrote, which was what scientists found true as they discovered one after the other scientific fact that correlated with the Nebular theory.

Quote from: Hakurei ReimuYour version of the nebular theory ignores the conservation of energy. If that's Kant's version, that doesn't change the fact that it ignores conservation of energy. Conservation of energy is a big deal. In the model you presented, matter simply accreted onto the earth without heating up, which means that untold millions of Joules of gravitational potential energy simply up and cease to exist.

Val Dusec will tell you exactly how Kant influenced Orsted, Maxwell, Colderidge, Thomson and many more.

Val Dusec also made a nice study on what you claim I am telling lies about.
Thomas Sherman have the exact same research.

I do not think you knew about these facts where Kant influenced them on Conservation of Energy!!!.

Quote from: Hakurei ReimuNo, that's not something that's going to be believed by any serious (that is, non-crank) physicist.

...and you are, due to total ignorance, incredibly in error.
The laws of 'Conservation of Energy', 'Chemical electrical relation', and 'Electro Magnetism'; was all discovered due to these scientists who postulated on Kant's work!

How does it feel to be check mated with the knowledge that all the science you know came from a man who read it from the Bible and started to think about what it said?
The more you acuse me of not knowing science ond its foundations, the more you display your ignorance to the fact that what you believe science teaches, is not what science says!

The same goes for you and the Bible.
You think you know what it says, yet every thing you speak from it is in error!

Quote from: HakureiEven when the nebular theory was live, the Earth after being accreted was thought to be a hot, molten ball of magma for this very reason. You simply can't get that much matter from such a sparse thing like a nebula into something as compact as a planet as fast as it was thought to occur without it heating up. You just can't do it. The sun is thought to have ignited nuclear fusion from just such a process, with inner core temperatures of millions of degrees. The planets are going to experience a lesser version of this.

And again.
When the Sun was still forming it would not have shined at all!
When it did start to ignite due to Nuclear fussion, it did so very "DIM'.
By that time the planets already formed into spheres.
Only lateron would the Sun gradually increase in its intensity.
So, what you want is to have an earth still in a nebulous cloud, and the Sun shining at its present state with the planets forming thereafter.
Totally wrong pal!

Quote from: HakureiImmanuel Kant didn't know about energy. He was not a physicist but a philosopher. The first modern use of energy appeared not long after he died. Not knowing about the conservation of energy and the mechanical equivalent of heat is not his fault. In modern day, any theory will have to conserve energy to be seriously considered.

And hopefully you read what Kant documented that gave rise to Colderidge et al who then discovered conservation of energy on Kant's thoughts.
You see, to discover some fraction of science, one needs to have an idea and a 'A, Ha moment'.
It then opens up a world of insightful ideas and once you tested these thoughts, or Theories, then it becomes a Scientific fact.

Now, let us reason about the Nebular theory, a wet and cold Earth, Conservation of energy, Electro Magnetism and so on...
When Kant spoke about it in a very simplistic way, it became the source of inspiration to very intelligent people who developed science as we know today.

Theory became fact, and we have the world we live in today.

However, when Darwin came up with his Evolutionary theory, there was no scientific backup, and it remains a theory.
Now we have people who claim to be descended from apes who think it is the best proven scientific discovery ever.

Do you see the difference?
Theory, Brilliant human intelligence, experiment, and it results into scientific law.
Theory, Darwin ape mentality, pack-mentality arguments to force everyone to think Evolution is fact, zero experiment, and it remains a Theory.

Do yourself one favor.
Go and read what Kant said, and stop to pretend you know...

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 29, 2018, 02:52:37 AM
If any word in any book does not believe what you think it did, due to you not knowing what it said?
Is the book true?
Or are you wrong

If the information in the book is wrong.   Then the book is wrong.

I don't have to interpret my car manual.    When it says a bolt needs to be tightened to 60nM that's precisely what I set my torque wrench to.

Quote from: Jason78 on July 30, 2018, 07:53:55 PM
If the information in the book is wrong.   Then the book is wrong.

I don't have to interpret my car manual.    When it says a bolt needs to be tightened to 60nM that's precisely what I set my torque wrench to.

Well then, you would be justified worshipping your car ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on July 30, 2018, 08:12:35 PM
Well then, you would be justified worshipping your car ;-)

Oh ye who go about saying unto each thy car "Start ya bastard":
Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
Yea, verily, thy clutch shalt be ground as if between two stones.
Shall the angry gods cast thy transmission onto the tarmac?
Surely, thy tyre shall be put out with a sharp stick!
Even unto the ends of the earth shalt thy engine splutter and cough
Unto the land of the scrapyard shalt thou be sent at last.
Surely thou shalt repent of thy cunning.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 30, 2018, 08:40:38 AM
<snip big fat huge red herring posturing bullshit>

Do yourself one favor.
Go and read what Kant said, and stop to pretend you know...

Dearheart, you've either conveyed Kant's theory accurately (if not precisely), or you haven't. If you haven't, we're done, because the version you relay to me isn't Kant's after all and you have misunderstood the very theory you think confirms your Bible, which doesn't bode well for your argument. If you have, then I don't have to go to Kant because you have relayed his theory accurately. Either way, I don't have ot reference Kant. It's the concept that is important, not the man.

So far, you have relayed a hypothesis that doesn't seem to conserve energy. I don't really care if Kant really was the source of inspiration for the conservation of energy or not, because the full postulate was only verified after his death, and couldn't have been complete until thermodynamics was developed as a theory and the role of heat was realized â€" a theory spurned by the development of the steam engine. It doesn't matter if Kant did know about conservation of energy, really; the only thing that matters here is if Kant's nebular hypothesis conserves energy. Again, it's the scientific concept that matters, not the man.

The way to resolve this is precisely the way you have not done so: you must go into Kant's nebular hypothesis and show us where the energy goes. Where do all the megajoules of gravitational potential energy that an infalling parcel of matter must pick up on its way down the gravity well of even a protoplanet, a stage and process the Earth must go through on its way to reaching its present size? It doesn't matter how smart Kant was, if his nebular hypothesis doesn't jive with the well-confirmed observation that the energy from falling down the gravitational potential manifests itself as heat upon impact, it's wrong.

It's a genetic fallacy to conclude that because the conservation of energy derives from ideas from Kant, that Kant must have had the full concept in his head and applied it in any particular hypothesis of his authorship. Just because Kant was toying with some concepts that lead to the conservation of energy doesn't mean he appreciated the full scope of such thoughts, or would acccept them as true once developed. Einstein never thought that his photoelectric effect and his concept of the quantum would lead to Quantum Mechanics, and his aminosity towards the theory is well-documented.

And furthermore, your assertion that conservation of energy somehow came from Kant is not even true. Primitive concepts of energy were kicking around as early as 1676 when Gottfried Leibniz postulated a quantity we would later call "kinetic energy" as the vis viva of a physical system, competing with Newton's conservation of momentum as the vis viva. The Bernoullis used what we would later call "energy" to characterize hydrodynamic systems in 1715 (before Kant's birth). Work carried out by Émilie du Châtelet in 1722 with cannonballs showed that Leibniz's vis viva was quite relevant to physics. We skim along, noting on the way that engineers found Newton's momentum inadequate to fully explain motion and used Leibniz's vis viva as well, and that whether it was truly conserved a bone of contention in physics until it gradually dawned on physicists that heat was indeed another form of vis viva, and work by Count Rumford's 1798 observations in boring cannons gave weight to heat being a form of vis viva, and that it seemed to be conserved and quite quantifiable. Finally, Leibniz's vis viva began to be referred to as energy and its details smoothed out by the development of thermodynamic theory, beginning in 1824 by Sadi Carnot. In 1837, Karl Friedrich Mohr gave the earliest statement of the conservation of energy in words, though not the term. Hermann von Helmholtz, based upon the work of Joule, Carnot and Clapeyron (and not Kant), published his theories of energy in 1847 in his book Über die Erhaltung der Kraft and from this publication the general acceptance of the conservation of energy originates, and is given its modern name by Rankine in 1850. The notion that Immanuel Kant was somehow responsible for this multi-century foment in physics (beginning before Kant was even born) is particularly bizarre.

Once more, it's the concept that's important, not the man. I don't care if Kant came up with some primitive notion of energy conservation; I want to know if his nebular hypothesis follows the modern conservation of energy, and conserves energy in all its known forms. Show that it does, and you might have something of value more than your empty crowings of premature victory.

And keep in mind, modern iterations of Kant's nebular hypothesis does have the Earth being initially hot from the accretion of matter, gas or solid. For you to have your muddy earth, you need to account for where that heat energy went.

When you can show calculations showing where all that energy went, then you can pretend to know the science better than I do.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 30, 2018, 09:49:34 PM
Dearheart, you've either conveyed Kant's theory accurately (if not precisely), or you haven't.

Once more, it's the concept that's important, not the man. I don't care if Kant came up with some primitive notion of energy conservation; I want to know if his nebular hypothesis follows the modern conservation of energy, and conserves energy in all its known forms. Show that it does, and you might have something of value more than your empty crowings of premature victory.

And keep in mind, modern iterations of Kant's nebular hypothesis does have the Earth being initially hot from the accretion of matter, gas or solid. For you to have your muddy earth, you need to account for where that heat energy went.

It does!
Actually, what physicists use as their scientific facts on the composition of the Solar System and Universe, was all due to the work of Kant!
Do not try to turn it around by even attempting to discard this knowledge.
the simple fact of Kant is that he studied the Bible, found the Nebular theory, wrote it in his Universal history of the Heavens, which was the foundation and building blocks of where science obtained much of their successes.
As time progressed, scientists did not know the origins, or they obscured their findings because it was very "Biblical" in nature, and as more and more discoveries was made on the composition of our Earth, Sun etc., atheists thought they could prove the Bible wrong with an incorrect interperetation of Genesis.

Guess what?
They did not know the history of what they proposed as evidence against God, originated from the Bible.

Now, you have been going on. and on, and on... about the Hadean epoch where you demand that the Earth was one helfire and not a cool and wet entity.

And I showed you how many scientists are now working in this field discovering that Kant was correct...the Bible was correct.

Do you want to know the real reason why you need to continue your rethoric?
Because in your quest to disprove the Wet young earth, you know that science is against your claims, and if this is the case!!!

You will have to admit that the Bible knew about the creation of the Universe, and science is proving the Bible correct!

I dont have to twist and change, nor do I have to give you any mathematics on anything.
If Scientists are discovering that the Hadean epoch is incorrect, and a wet Earth correct;
Then You will have to admit that the Bible is correct!!

I love it whan an atheist kicks and scream when they learn about this.

Calm down pal.
Go and read Kant.
It wont hurt you.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 31, 2018, 09:03:32 AM
It does!
Actually, what physicists use as their scientific facts on the composition of the Solar System and Universe, was all due to the work of Kant!

This may be the craziest thing you've said so far.

QuoteDo not try to turn it around by even attempting to discard this knowledge.

A strange request.  Handing someone garbage and then demanding that they don't throw it away.  Not everyone's a hoarder like you, ya know.

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 31, 2018, 10:25:09 AM
This may be the craziest thing you've said so far.

Nope.
I also remarked on the high cognitive abilities of atheists this morning.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 31, 2018, 11:00:42 AM
Nope.
I also remarked on the high cognitive abilities of atheists this morning.

How would you know since you don't have any.

Nullgod "So called" contradictions (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,5.msg16.html#msg16)
Well, lets see if this contradiction by the atheists, is one to use to see if the Bible can be discarded due to this error.

Quote from: the Atheists claimJesus had 2 different genealogies in the NT, another one in the OT

320. Three different genealogies of Jesus:

Quote from: Bible
A) Mt 1:6-16
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 
And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 
And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 
And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 
And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 
And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 
And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Quote from: Bible
B) Lk 3:21-31
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,
Which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi, which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Janna, which was [the son] of Joseph,
Which was [the son] of Mattathias, which was [the son] of Amos, which was [the son] of Naum, which was [the son] of Esli, which was [the son] of Nagge,
Which was [the son] of Maath, which was [the son] of Mattathias, which was [the son] of Semei, which was [the son] of Joseph, which was [the son] of Juda,
Which was [the son] of Joanna, which was [the son] of Rhesa, which was [the son] of Zorobabel, which was [the son] of Salathiel, which was [the son] of Neri,
Which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Addi, which was [the son] of Cosam, which was [the son] of Elmodam, which was [the son] of Er,
Which was [the son] of Jose, which was [the son] of Eliezer, which was [the son] of Jorim, which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi,
Which was [the son] of Simeon, which was [the son] of Juda, which was [the son] of Joseph, which was [the son] of Jonan, which was [the son] of Eliakim,
Which was [the son] of Melea, which was [the son] of Menan, which was [the son] of Mattatha, which was [the son] of Nathan, which was [the son] of David,
Which was [the son] of Jesse, which was [the son] of Obed, which was [the son] of Booz, which was [the son] of Salmon, which was [the son] of Naasson,
Which was [the son] of Aminadab, which was [the son] of Aram, which was [the son] of Esrom, which was [the son] of Phares, which was [the son] of Juda,
Which was [the son] of Jacob, which was [the son] of Isaac, which was [the son] of Abraham, which was [the son] of Thara, which was [the son] of Nachor,
Which was [the son] of Saruch, which was [the son] of Ragau, which was [the son] of Phalec, which was [the son] of Heber, which was [the son] of Sala,
Which was [the son] of Cainan, which was [the son] of Arphaxad, which was [the son] of Sem, which was [the son] of Noe, which was [the son] of Lamech,
Which was [the son] of Mathusala, which was [the son] of Enoch, which was [the son] of Jared, which was [the son] of Maleleel, which was [the son] of Cainan,
Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.

Quote from: Bible
C) 1 Chr 3:10-16

And Solomon's son [was] Rehoboam, Abia his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son,
Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son,
Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,
Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son,
Amon his son, Josiah his son.
And the sons of Josiah [were], the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.
And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.

Ok, for now I will discuss the 2 genealogies of Jesus in the NT.
This is one of the greatest propaganda used by Muslims to prove that the Bible is wrong, because the NT has 2 different ancestry recorded for Jesus.
Zakir Naik used this to great amusement of his audience against William Campbell when he showed this contradiction.

I was amazed that, even Christians, did not see what the Bible says about Jesus' 2 different genealogies.
But allow me to show you the atheist error.
The Bible verses says:

Quote from: KJVMat 1:16  And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 

Luke 3:23  And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 

I immediately saw the words "as was supposed", and became suspected on why these words was "added" into the verse.
This is something not to allowed, except as an explanation to a Greek word difficult to translate.
I then went back to the Greek, and literal translations to find out what is going on there.
Then I discovered something that realy proven to me how poor we perceive, not only the Bible, but simple daily encounters, with little logic.
I include this verse as explanation to show everyone what the Bible actually say.

Quote from:  Interlinear scripture analizer
And He/, •Jesus, when beginning~, was about thirty years old, being a son (as to the law[enomizeto]~) of Joseph, of •Eli,

The Bible says that Joseph was the "Lawful Father by law!", and this clearly shows that in Luke, the genealogy of Jesus through Mary is recorded!

This is crucial if one consider that YHWH told Eve that salvation will come from her seed!
Not only was Joseph the stepfather of Jesus, but Jesus did not have a human father, and it unravels incredibly beautiful when the atheist presented this contradiction so I could learn this fact hidden for almost 2 000 years!

I thank the whole world's atheist community, for the assistance they supplied in teaching me the depth the Bible holds which very few people experienced so far.
You guys are doing a great job in concocting straw men, and I love to observe these creatures closeby and fills with joy when I discover your corruption.

Just think, you never knew that Jesus had 2 grandfathers!
Perhaps because you were born miraculously without a father, and have only one grand dad, might be the reason for your misunderstanding of scripture!

I love this!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 27, 2018, 03:22:52 AM
Not only the 12, but also to the 70.
Please go and read the Bible.
What test?
Since when did Christians claim there is a Test to determine if the Bible is correct?
Another straw man!
No "rhetorical gymnastics or dodging the point', since when are "a lot of Christians who believe just that" evidence of anything true or false in the Bible.
If someone sacrifices an animal thinking we should do it because it is in the OT, is the Bible wrong, or that person who misread what it said.
I dont allow interpretations from the Bible at all.
Just read what it says, and any child will agree that Jesus gave these miracles to those that "Believed", referring to the apostles that believed He rose from the dead.
See if you can find the verse, ..."and to those who believed(go to Strongs to get the tenses), this gifts will follow!"

And you are so demanding in your struggle to prove that the Earth was not a Mud ball earth, that not only did you deny any scientific discoveries that prove that the Earth was not a ball of burning magma; but you are so pre occupied that you still have to carry on on this thread.

Are you slowly wearing out yet?  Your whole premise that throwing biblical thoughts to we atheists is getting tiresome.  I don't usually reply to you, your "arguments" are rather weak.  You just aren't getting anywhere here.

My main objection is just that you are clutterring up the board with theistic nonsense.

Cavebear,
Are you well today?
We are way past the Biblical test you and the Muslims failed.
We are now on the Question:
Did Jesus have 2 grandfathers?

Or do you only have 1? (hopefully you understand both living and dead)

Think before you answer, this is another setup to trap you pal!

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 04:33:51 AM
Cavebear,
Are you well today?
We are way past the Biblical test you and the Muslims failed.
We are now on the Question:
Did Jesus have 2 grandfathers?

Or do you only have 1? (hopefully you understand both living and dead)

Think before you answer, this is another setup to trap you pal!

I understood your handle from the start.  You wish to trap people in biblical terms.  Yadda, yadda, yadda...  I don't care the least bit about that.

Your biblical tests matters only in your internal beliefs.  I really don't care about those either.  Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Norse, etc are all the same to me.  Sad remnants of superstitions fading away...

So. you want a question of importance once to you and some christians?  Fine...

"Did Jesus have 2 grandfathers?"

First, prove there was an actual "Jesus" to begin with.  Answer that one without circular reasoning from your religious text, and we can talk further.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 04:59:50 AM
...So. you want a question of importance once to you and some christians?  Fine...

"Did Jesus have 2 grandfathers?"

First, prove there was an actual "Jesus" to begin with.  Answer that one without circular reasoning from your religious text, and we can talk further.

Well, lets see what I can remember about evidence that Jesus did live 2 000 Y ago.
1. The New Testament writers and the Apostles who went around teaching about Jesus. There was hundreds of thousands of witnesses when Jesus lived that would have stopped anyone to preach about Jesus amongst the Jews if it was a made up story.

However, you might claim that because I am quoting Christian sources, my facts are Bias.

So, what does non Christian pagans say about Jesus, if any thing at all.

1. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93 had two references to Jesus. There is a heck of a controversy on the first reference due to different manuscripts, but it does not influence the fact that both manuscripts does claim that Jesus was in Palestine and was the founder of Christian religion.
2. From Tacitus (90-110 AD)we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) â€" reports that fit with the time frame of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians â€" Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.
3.Thallus (52AD)
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who previously tried to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’ crucifixion:

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)"

4.Tacitus (56-120AD)
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
5.Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Sometime after 70AD, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact Jesus is known to be a real person with this kind of influence is important. Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as the “Wise King”:

“What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted.”
6. Phlegon (80-140AD)
In a manner similar to Thallus, Julius Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around 140AD. In this history, Phlegon also mentions the darkness surrounding the crucifixion in an effort to explain it:

“Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen (an early church theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria):

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)

“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)

“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)
7. Suetonius (69-140AD)
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD):

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

This expulsion took place in 49AD, and in another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result:

“Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2)

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 05:51:07 AM
Well, lets see what I can remember about evidence that Jesus did live 2 000 Y ago.

I've read all that before.  It is hearsay that would never be accepted in a court.  All your direct references are hearsay and the individuals you mention lived later.  The Romans kept very good records and at the time, they never mentioned your deity...

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 05:58:00 AM
I've read all that before.  It is hearsay that would never be accepted in a court.  All your direct references are hearsay and the individuals you mention lived later.  The Romans kept very good records and at the time, they never mentioned your deity...

Mmmmm....
Nero was a Roman.
He killed the Christians wherever he could find them, because they refused to worship the Roman / Greek Gods.
There were 10 massive persecutions against the Christians from 60 Ad to 313 Ad because the Romans hated the Christians who refused to worship the Roman/ Greek gods.
The New Testament was already fully composed in 60 Ad and all the Christian apostles' letters was sent throughout the world where there were Jews and Christians. The oldest fragments of papyri dates from 78 Ad, and a huge lot between 80 to 199 Ad.
Taken into consideration that these letters and Gospels was used by Christians who were living among Paul and the other Apostles, disciples and thousands of witnesses who knew Jesus, who went open armed into martyrdom for their religion in Jesus, It is highly unlikely that such a story was a concoction.

On the other hand, never in history was there any doubt about the life of Jesus, only untill the 20th century did atheists begin to make this claim on superficial grounds.
Read Alvar Ellegard's proposition, and then you will find assumption upon assumption.
same with Robert M. Price. He can not give a single reference to any of his claims.

Where does this arguments come from one may ask?
Well, From a guy with the name Tom Harpur. and his follower Achariah s.
He was a follower of Gerald Massey.

Now, all te above tried to prove that Jesus never existed, was a mythological figure, was constructed from Pagan religions such as Osiris, Horis, Zeus, Bacchus, and even Mithra.

Guess what, not a single one could produce evidence to James White (exclude Massey who obviously was dead) when they were taken to accountability.
I have all the bookjs, and if you want to see what total fiction it contains, get it!
You will be astounded to the evidence contraire to what we have for the existence of Jesus.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 07:50:35 AM
Mmmmm....
Nero was a Roman.
He killed the Christians wherever he could find them, because they refused to worship the Roman / Greek Gods.
There were 10 massive persecutions against the Christians from 60 Ad to 313 Ad because the Romans hated the Christians who refused to worship the Roman/ Greek gods.
The New Testament was already fully composed in 60 Ad and all the Christian apostles' letters was sent throughout the world where there were Jews and Christians. The oldest fragments of papyri dates from 78 Ad, and a huge lot between 80 to 199 Ad.
Taken into consideration that these letters and Gospels was used by Christians who were living among Paul and the other Apostles, disciples and thousands of witnesses who knew Jesus, who went open armed into martyrdom for their religion in Jesus, It is highly unlikely that such a story was a concoction.

On the other hand, never in history was there any doubt about the life of Jesus, only untill the 20th century did atheists begin to make this claim on superficial grounds.
Read Alvar Ellegard's proposition, and then you will find assumption upon assumption.
same with Robert M. Price. He can not give a single reference to any of his claims.

Where does this arguments come from one may ask?
Well, From a guy with the name Tom Harpur. and his follower Achariah s.
He was a follower of Gerald Massey.

Now, all te above tried to prove that Jesus never existed, was a mythological figure, was constructed from Pagan religions such as Osiris, Horis, Zeus, Bacchus, and even Mithra.

Guess what, not a single one could produce evidence to James White (exclude Massey who obviously was dead) when they were taken to accountability.
I have all the bookjs, and if you want to see what total fiction it contains, get it!
You will be astounded to the evidence contraire to what we have for the existence of Jesus.

I have no doubt there were christians.  But there were mithrists too.  Was he a deity?  Odinist, Osirisists, also.  Were those deities?

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 07:54:09 AM
I have no doubt there were christians.  But there were mithrists too.  Was he a deity?  Odinist, Osirisists, also.  Were those deities?

In all my studies, all I tried to find was evidence that Jesus was a copy of say, the Osiris myth where Osiris died, was buried, rose on the third day. (as claimed by Massey, Harpur and AchariahS)
When I read the Egyptian book of the Dead, and many books on Egyptian Myths, this was so far from the truth, that anyone will find such a correlation as laughable. And these guys are selling millions of books on no factual evidence.
For instance.
Egyptian Mythology shows that Osiris and Isis were married, but they were brother and sister, children of Geb and Nut (Earth and Sky gods)
Their younger brother ,Set, then murdered Osiris, chopped him up and hid his body parts in different places in the Nile.
Some stories say that Osiris' wife, Isis managed to find Osiris' phallus, and managed to get pregnant.
This child was Horus.

Now, there is no way anyone can even closely connect this story with what Tom Harpus claims.
He says, Horus was the virgin birth child of Isis, the Son of God!
Horus could walk on Water, when asked where on earth did you find any reference on this, AchariahS said, Horus was the Sun God, and the sun shone and reflects on the Nile, giving raise to Jesus being able to do the same.

I myself tried to find any connection between other myths and Jesus, say The Trimurti in Hinduism where Brahma, Visnu and  Shiva is said to have been the ancient Trinity and the Christian Trinity was a copy of the sanskrit version.
Well, when I did my investigation, I found that the Trimurti dated only from 800 AD!
If best, the Indian Trimurti copied the Christian one.
On this Tom Harpur is silent! and AchariahS confused.

Look at Harpur and Mithra claiming Mithra had a virgin birth, 12 Apostles, died on a cros, and rose from the dead.
Well, the myth say, Mythra jumped out of Mother earth fully armed, with the 12 zodiac signs around him. It does not say that Mithra died, or was resurrected.

Guys, these Mythesists are lying through their teeth to sell books.

No one could produce evidence that a person didn't exist? Yeah, that's a reasonable expectation to put on somebody. Not. Can you prove that Harry Potter never existed? Where's your evidence of that? It's quite telling when a theist is asked for evidence, and they reply with, "You can't prove that I'm wrong." Get out of here, you weak minded broken record.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 01, 2018, 09:36:21 AM
No one could produce evidence that a person didn't exist? Yeah, that's a reasonable expectation to put on somebody. Not. Can you prove that Harry Potter never existed? Where's your evidence of that? It's quite telling when a theist is asked for evidence, and they reply with, "You can't prove that I'm wrong." Get out of here, you weak minded broken record.

If ever I say, prove that Jesus did not exist, It will be a reflection of poor evidence.
What I do know is that it would be impossible for Jesus not to have existed.
The whole collective circumstances about His life is testimony of just that!
The Christian faith grew exponentially after the apostles went out to the Jews at first, then the Gentiles.
The Apostles, an disciples were not scared to lose their lives to testify that Jesus was God manifested in the Flesh, died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.
They wrote about the life of Jesus, wrote letters, and some lived for 70 years after Jesus left the Earth, such as John.
Their disciples, such as Polycarp and Justin Martyr, gave their lives because they knew the apostles and Disciples.
If anyone were to have fed them lies, this history would never have happened.
Anyhow, to deny that Jesus never existed is totally in contrast with factual evidence.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 07:54:09 AM
I have no doubt there were christians.  But there were mithrists too.  Was he a deity?  Odinist, Osirisists, also.  Were those deities?

Yes, in the sense that deities make sense at all.  Cultural totems.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 05:58:00 AM
I've read all that before.  It is hearsay that would never be accepted in a court.  All your direct references are hearsay and the individuals you mention lived later.  The Romans kept very good records and at the time, they never mentioned your deity...

Courts say that Citizen's United is constitutional.  Fuck courts.

But yes, there was no historical Jesus.  Just the fictional one, same as Jupiter.  But that was relevant to people then, even if not to people now.  The idea that Christianity started Gentile, and totally free of any Gentile influence (aka paganism) is a-historical.  Jewish synagogues grew out of Jewish polytheism, and Christian churches initially grew out of Hellenistic Jewish chavurah (fellowships) ... which were still semi-pagan at that time.  Judaism didn't become strongly monotheist until after Islam arrived.  Same with Christianity (though by that time it was entirely Gentile).

Mousetrap.   We've already established that your book doesn't mean the things that are written in it.

If you can interpret those words to mean whatever you want them to mean, then who's to say they mean anything at all?

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 11:10:44 AM
If ever I say, prove that Jesus did not exist, It will be a reflection of poor evidence.
What I do know is that it would be impossible for Jesus not to have existed.
The whole collective circumstances about His life is testimony of just that!
The Christian faith grew exponentially after the apostles went out to the Jews at first, then the Gentiles.
The Apostles, an disciples were not scared to lose their lives to testify that Jesus was God manifested in the Flesh, died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.
They wrote about the life of Jesus, wrote letters, and some lived for 70 years after Jesus left the Earth, such as John.
Their disciples, such as Polycarp and Justin Martyr, gave their lives because they knew the apostles and Disciples.
If anyone were to have fed them lies, this history would never have happened.
Anyhow, to deny that Jesus never existed is totally in contrast with factual evidence.

There was a real psychological change in the Mediterranean cultures at that time (well at least to get it to 10% of the population by the time of Constantine).  And it was initiated by Jews.  The pseudo-intellectualism of the Sophists are still going strong also ... alive today.  There were early "Christians" but they weren't Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox.  They were Jewish messianics.  And only Paul let Gentiles into his congregations.  At that time, Peter/James/Barnabas won the argument.  All Jews.  Most of the Gentiles that came into Paul's congregations were already associated with synagogues.  See "In Search of Paul".  If you want to see what an early congregation was like read "The Didache".  It isn't like church today, and it was mostly Jewish, mostly charismatic.  Early Hasidic.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 31, 2018, 09:03:32 AM
Calm down pal.
Go and read Kant.
It wont hurt you.

Done.

I was able to find an english translation of Kant's Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels (1755) and did some reading. Of course, it's pretty slow going owing to the very different styles of science writing compared to modern papers. Nevertheless, I was able to decipher some things and understand enough of what Kant was talking about for our purposes. What I will examine is some of the specific claims that Kant puts forth in how the solar system formed, and contrast them to what modern science says.

Kant figures that density makes a difference in how a body is pulled by gravity, thus resulting in the differentiation of the nebular disk. It does not, as gravity couples only to mass. An elementary examination of the forces on a body vs its acceleration will reveal that the mass of the attracted body drops out of the equation. A ton of feathers is as hard to pull into a circular orbit as a ton of bricks, and takes as much work to do so. Density is irrelevant, and as such another force must come into play to differentiate the disk.

Nevertheless, Kant goes on to predict that the densities of the planets should increase as we get nearer the sun.

Quote from: Kant
"In fact, the moon has twice the density of the Earth, and the Earth is four times denser than the sun, which, according to all assumptions, will be exceeded by the planets even closer to the sun, Venus and Mercury, with an even higher degree of density."

Kant is wrong on all but one count (the Earth is indeed about four times the density of the sun). Mercury and Venus are about the same density of Earth (5.51 g/cm³), with Mercury barely more dense (5.43 g/cm³), and Venus barely less dense (5.24 g/cm³). And the Moon is not twice the density of the Earth; it is just more than half as dense at 3.34 g/cm³. Mars is a bit denser than the Moon (3.93 g/cm³), but then we see this huge drop in density at Jupiter (1.326 g/cm³), continuing at Saturn (0.687 g/cm³), Uranus (1.27 g/cm³), and finally Neptune (1.638 g/cm³). In other words, we have one group of bodies that are nearly the same density near the inner solar system, and another group of bodies that are nearly the same density in the outer solar system, but with a precipitous drop between the two. That suggests more a phase transition than it does a continuous influence.

There's also the point that, if the nebular disk did differentiate according to density, where the density of material increases as we get closer to the center, why the density of the sun is very much less than that of the Earth even though it ought to be the most affected by this supposed effect. The sun should be made of iron, not hydrogen.

Kant has a stationary, unmoving disk go into net rotation from internal forces. No. Internal forces cannot cause the system to go into a net rotation in the same direction. That violates the conservation of angular momentum. Furthermore, this sudden change occurs without real explanation. There's no specified event that triggers this, and furthermore, forces that seemed to always be in play to prevent a preferred direction suddenly changed their behavior to cause this rotation to occur. This would not only violate conservation of angular momentum, but occurs in defiance of Newton's first law, and also conservation of linear momentum and conservation of energy.

Kant had no firm word to say about the origin of the solar system's moons, only to present a guess that he admits as a guess. "I consider this explanation only as a supposition which I do not have the confidence to establish." Fair enough, Kant.

Kent doesn't discuss any of the conservation laws, and it seems was ignorant of all of them, given how several of the steps in his hypothesis require their violation. The violation of energy conservation is at least understandable, because in Kant's time it really didn't seem that Leibnitz's vis vita (what we now call energy) was a strictly conserved quantity â€" it only seemed conserved in special circumstances. It was only decades after Allgemeine when thermodynamics started development that energy conservation came to be understood as strict, and that the graveyard of energy would turn out to be heat.

Finally, while Kant does make a stab at why the planets have differentiated like they do, with the densest stuff sinking to the center. While he makes no specific mention of molten rock, he does mention that the surfaces are volitile initially and later become firm. He also says, "This surface becomes firm and hardens while the deeper material has not yet sufficiently sunk down according to the measure of its specific gravity." The use of specific gravity is intriguing, because that is a property usually assigned to fluids, like liquids and gasses. This suggests a molten state for the initial Earth, and by extention the other planets.

So, the verdict?

Was Immanuel Kant on to something with his nebular hypothesis? Yes. Would that hypothesis, as stated by Immanuel Kant in his Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels in 1755, pass modern scientific muster? No. There are many problems with it that would necessitate its revision and/or abandonment. This is what has happened in modern theory of how the solar system came about. The modern theory is a nebular theory, but not one that Kant would recognize nor could take credit for.

I also uphold the charge that you are, indeed, misrepresenting Kant's ideas. You claimed that the idea of energy conservation came from Kant and was present in this particular theory, and it's quite evident that it is not. There is an inkling that Kant knew that motion and heat were related, but the nature of this relation is not clear nor quantified, and conservation laws are things of quantities. I also think that Kant was vaguely aware that the Earth would have to be hot and molten in order to differentiate as it did, in defiance to your own model of a cold, wet mudball. Furthermore, some of his predictions are in fact wrong, by any qualitative and quantitative critera, and as such would necessitate heavy revision â€" like where the angular momentum came from.

So, yeah, I'm not impressed.

How much can Kant cant, if Kant can't Kant?

Can "a priori" be dialectically compared to "a posteriori" ... so that Hegel can pull Marx out of his own ass?

Quote from: Jason78 on August 01, 2018, 12:54:15 PM
Mousetrap.   We've already established that your book doesn't mean the things that are written in it.

If you can interpret those words to mean whatever you want them to mean, then who's to say they mean anything at all?

Ok, who are WE?
All the atheists who made up a lot of Straw Puppets?
Nice argument indeed.
Well, we all established that Atheists are totally incapable to read the Bible, and they never did!
Yet, they will criticize it!
Nice argument indeed!

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 12:57:05 PM
There was a real psychological change in the Mediterranean cultures at that time (well at least to get it to 10% of the population by the time of Constantine).  And it was initiated by Jews.  The pseudo-intellectualism of the Sophists are still going strong also ... alive today.  There were early "Christians" but they weren't Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox.  They were Jewish messianics.  And only Paul let Gentiles into his congregations.  At that time, Peter/James/Barnabas won the argument.  All Jews.  Most of the Gentiles that came into Paul's congregations were already associated with synagogues.  See "In Search of Paul".  If you want to see what an early congregation was like read "The Didache".  It isn't like church today, and it was mostly Jewish, mostly charismatic.  Early Hasidic.

You get my trophy for the best informed post so far.
Now I wonder, Why on earth would Paul have said what he did?
First hand information about Jesus perhaps?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 01, 2018, 07:31:54 PM
...........

You should not have searched so far and in-between, a simple search on Google on "Universal theory of the heavens PDF would have saved you a lot of time.
You would have reached sites as these.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf

And Yes, I also do not agree with Kant that there is life on other planets.
however, Even if he was wrong with the densities of planets, it does not have anything to do with his theory of the Nebular development of our solar system.
Even if we look at what Laplace and Swedenborg wrote, we will find huge assumptions that was incorrect.

The fact remains that on the nebular theory, Kant was correct, and every scientist that argues against this fact, does so because they know that the Nebular theory correlates with the Biblical description.

But why dont we further this argument to its fullest?
I showed how the Bible describes the Nebular theory, whereby its description denotes gravity, Time, matter and space.
If you say Kant did not describe the Nebular theory, and he did not get it from the Bible, then...

I was able to do so!

Therefore, I read something from the Bible that science now knows is fact!

Mousetrap, the philosopher who could prove science from the Bible!

This is just great!

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 02, 2018, 07:28:20 AM
You get my trophy for the best informed post so far.
Now I wonder, Why on earth would Paul have said what he did?
First hand information about Jesus perhaps?

Paul never met the living Jesus, he had an epiphany on the way to Damascus.  The Pillars in Jerusalem didn't approve of him evangelizing Jews.  They promised not to fight him, if he only evangelized the Gentiles.  Peter, James and Barnabas supported the Jewish mission.  Paul was going into synagogues and calling out Gentiles who were associate members (not full members, because not circumcised yet).  Ancient people (other than Semites and Africans) objected strongly to circumcision.  These were G-d Fearers (Jews didn't need to fear G-d, they were saved by virtue of Abraham etc).  So how do you get a Jewish salvation, without getting circumcised and observing kosher?  Easy grace ... get saved in the spirit, not in the flesh.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 02, 2018, 07:25:55 AM
Ok, who are WE?
All the atheists who made up a lot of Straw Puppets?
Nice argument indeed.

You and I are "We".     

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 02, 2018, 07:25:55 AM
Well, we all established that Atheists are totally incapable to read the Bible, and they never did!
Yet, they will criticize it!
Nice argument indeed!

I've read it more than once.   I've even read more than one edition.  Including the King James version which I swear was 10 times longer with all the archaic wording.

You should actually try reading it from cover to cover.   Some bits of it make for a really good read.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 02, 2018, 08:07:41 AM
You should not have searched so far and in-between, a simple search on Google on "Universal theory of the heavens PDF would have saved you a lot of time.
You would have reached sites as these.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf

Well, la-dee-dah. I found my translation easily on Google, too, although I had to wade through some pages to find one that looked like I could actually read â€" searching with the German name was probably a mistake. Oh well.

Quote
And Yes, I also do not agree with Kant that there is life on other planets.
however, Even if he was wrong with the densities of planets, it does not have anything to do with his theory of the Nebular development of our solar system.

Actually, it does:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxvQMhttq4

If Kant's model doesn't match up with experiment or observation, it's wrong, needing revision or abandonment.

Quote
Even if we look at what Laplace and Swedenborg wrote, we will find huge assumptions that was incorrect.

So? They were wrong, too. It's not as if one or the other must be right. They can all be wrong.

Quote
The fact remains that on the nebular theory, Kant was correct, and every scientist that argues against this fact, does so because they know that the Nebular theory correlates with the Biblical description.

Funny you should say that. I've now read through the entirity of the Allgemeine Naturgeschichte and I have found but one single, brief reference to the biblical scripture (that in using a hypothetical Earth ring to legislate one out of the waters above the firmament problem), even though Kant references such luminaries as Decartes, Lucretius, Thomas Wright, Tycho Brahe, and of course Isaac Newton himself. There are many references to the divine therein, but not to the scripture. For a source that you claim Kant drew such inspiration from, Kant himself is curiously stingy with that particular source.

I'm beginning to think that you are the one who's never read Kant.

Quote
But why dont we further this argument to its fullest?
I showed how the Bible describes the Nebular theory, whereby its description denotes gravity, Time, matter and space.

Uh, no you haven't. Even Kant himself doesn't say that scripture is where his description of his nebular theory came from. He, in fact, references Thomas Wright. And lots of other people, but only one brief mention of the actual bible and that's in reference to the waters above the firmament, and how a ring around Earth could resolve that problem. He, however, arrived at his nebular theory by his own work and building on the work of others.

Quote
If you say Kant did not describe the Nebular theory, and he did not get it from the Bible, then...

I was able to do so!

Oh, I never said that Kant didn't describe A nebular theory, I said that he doesn't describe MODERN nebular theory. There is a difference. What I'm claiming is that you don't even have the wherewithall to convey Kant's nebular theory correctly. This is symptomatic of stealing the authority of another person and using it as a ventriloquist dummy.

Quote
Therefore,

Therefore nothing. You've proven nothing, and demonstrated that you know nothing. I'm still waiting on those calculations that show that Kant's nebular theory even conserves energy, which are strangely absent from your posts. Heck, I have found nothing in Kant's nebular theory that shows that he even thought that the Earth ended up as a cold wet ball rather than as a hot ball that cooled off.

Quote
Mousetrap, the philosopher who could prove science from the Bible!

This is just great!

Moustrap, the guy who crows victory prematurely. You are no philosopher and you have not proven science using the Bible, because your use doesn't produce anything that looks like the science of the origin of the universe as we currently understand it. You think we're playing baseball, when we're actually playing soccer.

Quite frankly, your use of blue, bold and large is quite annoying, as it makes you read like a prancing fop. I think you should have your markup privilages removed.

Atheists agree ... Kant is god ;-)  He was a philosopher, not a scientist.

Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2018, 07:45:30 PM
Atheists agree ... Kant is god ;-)  He was a philosopher, not a scientist.

You  Kant say that.

Quote from: Jason78 on August 02, 2018, 01:47:03 PM
You and I are "We".     

I've read it more than once.   I've even read more than one edition.  Including the King James version which I swear was 10 times longer with all the archaic wording.

You should actually try reading it from cover to cover.   Some bits of it make for a really good read.

Not only did I read it, I read it more than a dosen times.

But lets see if you can top this, I summarized it and printed it in book form.
Unfortunately in my mother tongue. Afrikaans.

You should actually read the Bible in the easiest language on Earth.
Afrikaans!

Then you will go to heaven.

If you dont learn Afrikaans, you will not understand what we say to each other in heaven.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 02, 2018, 08:07:41 AMMousetrap, the philosopher who could prove science from the Bible!

Sometimes, a...y'know, sometimes, a story's just a story. You try to read into every little thing, and find meaning in everything anyone says, you'll just drive yourself crazy. Had a friend do it once. Wasn't pretty. We talked about it for years. And then not only that, but...you'll likely end up believing something you shouldn't believe, thinking something you shouldn't think, or assuming something you shouldn't assume.

He proceeded to pour me a glass of just...ice cold lemonade. Ooh, you ever mix it with iced tea? Ya do, like...half lemonade ha...ooh, you should try it soâ€"well, you can't...

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2018, 12:46:38 PM
Sometimes, a...y'know, sometimes, a story's just a story. You try to read into every little thing, and find meaning in everything anyone says, you'll just drive yourself crazy. Had a friend do it once. Wasn't pretty. We talked about it for years. And then not only that, but...you'll likely end up believing something you shouldn't believe, thinking something you shouldn't think, or assuming something you shouldn't assume.

He proceeded to pour me a glass of just...ice cold lemonade. Ooh, you ever mix it with iced tea? Ya do, like...half lemonade ha...ooh, you should try it soâ€"well, you can't...

Arnold Palmer's favorite.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2018, 12:46:38 PM
Sometimes, a...y'know, sometimes, a story's just a story. You try to read into every little thing, and find meaning in everything anyone says, you'll just drive yourself crazy. Had a friend do it once. Wasn't pretty. We talked about it for years. And then not only that, but...you'll likely end up believing something you shouldn't believe, thinking something you shouldn't think, or assuming something you shouldn't assume.

He proceeded to pour me a glass of just...ice cold lemonade. Ooh, you ever mix it with iced tea? Ya do, like...half lemonade ha...ooh, you should try it soâ€"well, you can't...

Reminds me of a time I was having a good conversation with my friend Orville. We were sitting by the river, watching the fish leap over the falls, and I said to Orville, "Sometimes I feel like a fish leaping over and over again, trying to get somewhere, only to find myself in the jaws of a beast."

He, of course, looked at me surprised, you know? "Have you been in the jaws of a beast, friend?"

To which I said, "No, of course not, Orville." I said, "No, no, no, no. I simply meant that life can seem like a relentless endeavor to overcome meaningless obstacles, only to meet an equally meaningless fate, regardless of your efforts. Regardless of the obstacles you've passed."

And Orville, he stood and proceeded to drape me with a picnic cloth, to which I asked him, I said, "Friend, what - what are you doing?"

He looked at me, very concerned really, "I feel like you've gotten too much sun."

Indeed. Indeed I had. He proceeded to pour me a glass of just ice cold lemonade. But anyways, so you may be asking yourself, "How did I go from sitting by the falls and drinking lemonade, to typing in this forum with an entire assortment of fruity friends?"

Well, there's really no good answer to that, but perhaps I've met a demise of my own at some point and this is my afterlife or my dream. Whatever it might be, I honestly don't know. Or maybe it doesn't mean anything at all. Maybe it doesn't mean anything at all.

OK, good story, but I don't believe you ever even met Mr Redenbacher ;-)

That fish has a purpose ... to spawn.  If you aren't going upstream to spawn then you are meant to be bear food.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 03, 2018, 03:01:12 AM
Not only did I read it, I read it more than a dosen times.

But lets see if you can top this, I summarized it and printed it in book form.
Unfortunately in my mother tongue. Afrikaans.

You should actually read the Bible in the easiest language on Earth.
Afrikaans!

Then you will go to heaven.

If you dont learn Afrikaans, you will not understand what we say to each other in heaven.

If you dont learn Afrikaans, you will not understand what we say to each other in heaven.

There is nothing I could care less about than your after-death fiction.

I mean, really.

Quote from: ferdmonger on August 03, 2018, 09:15:18 PM
If you dont learn Afrikaans, you will not understand what we say to each other in heaven.

There is nothing I could care less about than your after-death fiction.

I mean, really.

Don't be silly, he was trolling ... you have to know Hebrew of course ;-)

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 11:10:44 AM
If ever I say, prove that Jesus did not exist, It will be a reflection of poor evidence.
What I do know is that it would be impossible for Jesus not to have existed.
The whole collective circumstances about His life is testimony of just that!
The Christian faith grew exponentially after the apostles went out to the Jews at first, then the Gentiles.
The Apostles, an disciples were not scared to lose their lives to testify that Jesus was God manifested in the Flesh, died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.
They wrote about the life of Jesus, wrote letters, and some lived for 70 years after Jesus left the Earth, such as John.
Their disciples, such as Polycarp and Justin Martyr, gave their lives because they knew the apostles and Disciples.
If anyone were to have fed them lies, this history would never have happened.
Anyhow, to deny that Jesus never existed is totally in contrast with factual evidence.

Still not seeing an factual evidence for Jesus existing as a real person...

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 11:10:44 AM

Anyhow, to deny that Jesus never existed is totally in contrast with factual evidence.

That is exactly what I think.  A very factual statement; totally backed by the evidence.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 04, 2018, 02:16:35 AM
That is exactly what I think.  A very factual statement; totally backed by the evidence.

No factual evidence, right?  Did I miss something in your post?

Quote from: Cavebear on August 04, 2018, 02:42:09 AM
No factual evidence, right?  Did I miss something in your post?

Context.  MikeCL is referring to the factual evidence that Jesus never existed as a historical person.  I also agree.

Quote from: Baruch on August 04, 2018, 08:05:49 AM
Context.  MikeCL is referring to the factual evidence that Jesus never existed as a historical person.  I also agree.

Oh complete agreement!  Been saying that for decades.  Just wasn't sure I understood.  Sometimes when I get agreement, I'm surprised even here sometimes, LOL!  Comes from living in a generally weird theist world...

Quote from: Cavebear on August 04, 2018, 08:13:57 AM
Oh complete agreement!  Been saying that for decades.  Just wasn't sure I understood.  Sometimes when I get agreement, I'm surprised even here sometimes, LOL!  Comes from living in a generally weird theist world...

When people use counter-factual sentences (in context of someone else's post) they are going to be misunderstood.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 04, 2018, 02:42:09 AM
No factual evidence, right?  Did I miss something in your post?

Cavebear, read mouse's statement.  It says that to think jesus lived is not factual. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 04, 2018, 09:51:18 AM
Cavebear, read mouse's statement.  It says that to think jesus lived is not factual.

His posts are too annoying to read.  If he wants to say that, let him say that simply and directly without 20 paragraphs of nonsense.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 04, 2018, 10:32:23 AM
His posts are too annoying to read.  If he wants to say that, let him say that simply and directly without 20 paragraphs of nonsense.

Cavebear--focus!  Just read the one sentence quote of Mouse.  He said, I guess because he doesn't not really know how to write or communicate, he said that to believe that jesus existed is factual.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 04, 2018, 09:51:18 AM
Cavebear, read mouse's statement.  It says that to think jesus lived is not factual. 

I have to admire your willingness to read his lengthy posts.  While I won't do it, it's probably good practice for spotting logical fallacies and psychologically deranged minds.  And sometimes it's even fun for me to sift through long texts to spot the fallacies the way a child looks for Waldo in the Where's Waldo series of picture books.

It's not uncommon to see walls of text in debates from theists, because walls are good ways to hide fallacies, which need to be kept out of view from both the reader and usually the writer himself.

Logic and to a lesser degree science, loves simplicity.  There's even that rule of thumb science uses that says if two theories explain a phenomena equally well, the simpler one is more likely correct.  It's a surprising suggestion, although there are reasons that I'm not going into that supports that practice.

So what could be simpler than goddidit as a theory?  Well aside from the fact that it depends on an unverifiable entity to explain anything in it's first premise, much like the belief in unverifiable phlogiston explains fire, it doesn't lead to further inquiry and understanding, which would add to mankind's knowledge, or horror of horrors, to something that might challenge an unsupportable belief in a deity.

While goddidit is the simpler theory, it does in fact raise more questions, but always excludes the most fundamental question, "Is there a god at all?"  The study of apologetics has been invented to explain these further questions. 

Do I correctly remember hearing that apologetics is an actual field of study taught in Bible colleges?  If it is, apologetics is a horrible name that doesn't inspire much confidence in the field itself.  The course synopsis should read:

QuoteIntroduces students to various compiled lists of logical fallacies, and explains how the fallacies can be effectively used in reasoning and debate to support Biblical contradictions and extraordinary claims that defy everyday common sense.  The student will learn how to strengthen his personal belief and faith, and to reject the most fundamental findings of scientific study.  He will also learn to weave science and fallacy together into convincing arguments that will test the stamina of the average science oriented skeptic. He will learn that a logical fallacy is not a argumentative flaw, but will come to see it as a supportive asset to be used in convincing those who do not yet know God's grace.

Quote from: SGOS on August 04, 2018, 11:31:41 AM
I have to admire your willingness to read his lengthy posts.  While I won't do it, it's probably good practice for spotting logical fallacies and psychologically deranged minds.  And sometimes it's even fun for me to sift through long texts to spot the fallacies the way a child looks for Waldo in the Where's Waldo series of picture books.

It's not uncommon to see walls of text in debates from theists, because walls are good ways to hide fallacies, which need to be kept out of view from both the reader and usually the writer himself.

Logic and to a lesser degree science, loves simplicity.  There's even that rule of thumb science uses that says if two theories explain a phenomena equally well, the simpler one is more likely correct.  It's a surprising suggestion, although there are reasons that I'm not going into that supports that practice.

So what could be simpler than goddidit as a theory?  Well aside from the fact that it depends on an unverifiable entity to explain anything in it's first premise, much like the belief in unverifiable phlogiston explains fire, it doesn't lead to further inquiry and understanding, which would add to mankind's knowledge, or horror of horrors, to something that might challenge an unsupportable belief in a deity.

While goddidit is the simpler theory, it does in fact raise more questions, but always excludes the most fundamental question, "Is there a god at all?"  The study of apologetics has been invented to explain these further questions. 

Do I correctly remember hearing that apologetics is an actual field of study taught in Bible colleges?  If it is, apologetics is a horrible name that doesn't inspire much confidence in the field itself.  The course synopsis should read:

First, thanks for the admiring.....:))  But I only read that one sentence because it was copied by Cavebear in one of his replies.  Then I reread it.  And laughed.  He was saying the exact opposite of what the point was of his mile long diatribe.  I think he was trying to prove jesus existed as a real person, but his last sentence said that to believe that would not be factual.  The irony was wonderful!
Yes, apologetics is a field study for theists.  When I was deep into my bible study, I used a couple of books from schools that taught that subject.  I've always found that title to be somewhat odd and mildly amusing.  I've always thought that anyone who took it seriously as a study should apologize. :)

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 04, 2018, 10:49:07 AM
Cavebear--focus!  Just read the one sentence quote of Mouse.  He said, I guess because he doesn't not really know how to write or communicate, he said that to believe that jesus existed is factual.

Why would saying that "jesus existed is factual" be surprising from Mousetrap?

Quote from: SGOS on August 04, 2018, 11:31:41 AM
I have to admire your willingness to read his lengthy posts.  While I won't do it, it's probably good practice for spotting logical fallacies and psychologically deranged minds.  And sometimes it's even fun for me to sift through long texts to spot the fallacies the way a child looks for Waldo in the Where's Waldo series of picture books.

It's not uncommon to see walls of text in debates from theists, because walls are good ways to hide fallacies, which need to be kept out of view from both the reader and usually the writer himself.

Logic and to a lesser degree science, loves simplicity.  There's even that rule of thumb science uses that says if two theories explain a phenomena equally well, the simpler one is more likely correct.  It's a surprising suggestion, although there are reasons that I'm not going into that supports that practice.

So what could be simpler than goddidit as a theory?  Well aside from the fact that it depends on an unverifiable entity to explain anything in it's first premise, much like the belief in unverifiable phlogiston explains fire, it doesn't lead to further inquiry and understanding, which would add to mankind's knowledge, or horror of horrors, to something that might challenge an unsupportable belief in a deity.

While goddidit is the simpler theory, it does in fact raise more questions, but always excludes the most fundamental question, "Is there a god at all?"  The study of apologetics has been invented to explain these further questions. 

Do I correctly remember hearing that apologetics is an actual field of study taught in Bible colleges?  If it is, apologetics is a horrible name that doesn't inspire much confidence in the field itself.  The course synopsis should read:

Apologetics and polemics are still taught in seminaries.  My ex was in seminary as recently as 1998.

Einstein says, if you can't explain it to a six year old, then you don't understand it yourself.

Don't get too excited if Mousetrap makes typos, or is confused.  Common problems those are.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 04, 2018, 12:46:53 PM
Why would saying that "jesus existed is factual" be surprising from Mousetrap?

Cavebear, Cavebear, my man. :))  He didn't quite say that.  This is what he said as the last sentence of one of his posts dealing with Jesus:'Anyhow, to deny that Jesus never existed is totally in contrast with factual evidence.'  Isn't that saying if you deny that he never existed that would not be factual--well, I don't deny that he never existed--that is what I think--and mousey is telling me that that is factual.  He is arguing with himself.

Apparently, like his hero Trump, he gets confused by double negatives.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 04, 2018, 02:39:22 PM
Cavebear, Cavebear, my man. :))  He didn't quite say that.  This is what he said as the last sentence of one of his posts dealing with Jesus:'Anyhow, to deny that Jesus never existed is totally in contrast with factual evidence.'  Isn't that saying if you deny that he never existed that would not be factual--well, I don't deny that he never existed--that is what I think--and mousey is telling me that that is factual.  He is arguing with himself.

Multiple negatives.  I never mess with that nonsense.  Beware of 'players" who do.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 04, 2018, 03:00:37 PM
Apparently, like his hero Trump, he gets confused by double negatives.

Apparently his god lead him right into that. :)))  And just like trump, mousey believes whatever he is saying at the moment is the truth--even if he said the opposite a few minutes ago.

Yeah, big surprise, huh?

Quote from: Jason78 on August 02, 2018, 01:47:03 PM
You should actually try reading it from cover to cover.   Some bits of it make for a really good read.

I can but quote Asimov here: "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 03, 2018, 03:01:12 AM
Not only did I read it, I read it more than a dosen times.

But lets see if you can top this, I summarized it and printed it in book form.
Unfortunately in my mother tongue. Afrikaans.

You should actually read the Bible in the easiest language on Earth.
Afrikaans!

Then you will go to heaven.

If you dont learn Afrikaans, you will not understand what we say to each other in heaven.

I present to you Ladies and Gentlemen; Our learned theists considered rebuttal to the problem that his favourite book doesn't actually mean any of the things that it says.

Quote from: Jason78 on August 06, 2018, 02:32:09 AM
I present to you Ladies and Gentlemen; Our learned theists considered rebuttal to the problem that his favourite book doesn't actually mean any of the things that it says.

I suggest, Jason, stay away from movies such as Halloween, and get into comedies a bit.
This might teach you comedy when someone produces it to you.

Quote from: trdsf on August 06, 2018, 02:11:44 AM
I can but quote Asimov here: "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

And I can quote many people on their stance of the Bible. (http://reasonsforjesus.com/former-bible-burning-atheist-peter-hitchens-finds-jesus/)
Will it change the facts?
Why do you think quoting Asimov will be some hard core fact that the Bible is wrong?

On the above link you will read about Peter Hitchens, brother of the most notorious Christopher Hitchens, on what he think of God.
to quote him..."I AM ALSO BAFFLED AND FRUSTRATED BY THE STRANGE INSISTENCE OF MY ANTI-THEIST BROTHER THAT THE CRUELTY OF COMMUNIST ANTI-THEIST REGIMES DOES NOT REFLECT BADLY ON HIS CASE AND ON HIS CAUSE. IT UNQUESTIONABLY DOES."

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 04, 2018, 04:26:50 PM
Apparently his god lead him right into that. :)))  And just like trump, mousey believes whatever he is saying at the moment is the truth--even if he said the opposite a few minutes ago.

I do admit that in my Language, the double negatives is the norm. And by me thinking in Afrikaans does not assist me in writing in English at all.
Again, I learned English in a very late stage of my life.
Furthermore, the places where I learned it at, was not English at all.
Therefore, I learned 2nd hand English, and admit I am bad, Bad, Bad with that language.
Therefore, if this is the only critique you have, so be it.
I can speak, Afrikaans, English, and Zulu.
Zulu is my 2nd language.

How about you guys?

Yes, more than one language allows the double negative ... this breaks narrow logical schemes.  A double negative should be a positive, and thus redundant.  But in these languages (I have studied quite a few being an amateur linguist) the double negative serves a rhetorical purpose.

Language analysis per computer science:

Lexical analysis - individual symbols (alphabet)
Syntactical analysis - combinations of symbols (variables etc)
Semantic analysis - what the code does (reality of how the code runs)
Pragmatic analysis - how the executing code interfaces with the outer worlds

Scripture analysis per rabbis:

Denotational sense - the original has no punctuation, what are the words?
Connotational sense - what is the meaning of the verse
Homilitic sense - how can we use the verse in our ritual life
Esoteric sense - what is the transcendent meaning

Per naturalists:

Physics - atoms
Chemisty - molecules
Biology - living things
Psychology - cognizant living things

Typically most people are literalists (they only deal with the first level) because it is easier to ignore the difficult.  Reductionism in science says only physics is real aka materialism.

Western culture isn't the only culture, or has the final answers on cultural questions.  Ancient Buddhists had 4 level logic, beyond the 2 level logic of Boole (19th century British).  Modern computers actually used 3 level logic (on, off, disconnect).  Saying it is binary, isn't accurate.  Notice also that DNA isn't binary, but quaternary ... though if you look at pairs only, it is binary, but the order of the pairing matters (which nucleotide is on which strand).

Per Buddists:

It is true
It is not-true
It is both true and not-true
It is neither true nor not-true

Per this string topic .. nobody here knows what a contradiction even is.  If you have two level logic, a logical formula has three mutually exclusive status:

Tautology - true by definition - on
Contradiction - false by definition - off
Contingent - to be determined by additional formulas provided later - disconnect

The logic of the binary, has three levels ... hmm ... same as computer circuits.  Computers are logic machines, but not as simple minded people think.  The logic of the status ... is not binary.

For example, with a database, the external data in it can be self consistent or not.  Nobody bothers with a database that is true by definition (an authoritative dictionary attempts that, and fails, because a living language is alive, not dead (like Latin)).  So contingent in this case matches the Buddhist "both true and not-true".  An empty database would match the Buddhist "neither true nor not-true".

This is also why there can be no true AI.  A human being is an analog machine, there are an infinity of levels, not just two, three, four.  This is made possible by the analog nature of reality, and the presence of many trillions of DNA strands etc that make up your body.  A computer is an oversimplified approximation.  It is as cognizant as an inflatable sex doll is a real woman.

Quote from: Lemuel K. WashburnOf all the great inventions and discoveries that go to make human life easier, happier, more rich and glorious, not one can be laid to the work of theology. These triumphs all belong to science…. If man had no knowledge except what was got out of the Bible he would not know enough to make a shoe.

I would agree that theologians didn't help mankind.  Chemists produced Zyklon B.  Yeah team!

Gassing humans was an off-label use of Zyklon B. It's labeled use was as insecticide.

Of course, it was fucking cyanide, so it's not as if this use was harmless.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 06, 2018, 06:12:40 AM
I do admit that in my Language, the double negatives is the norm. And by me thinking in Afrikaans does not assist me in writing in English at all.
Again, I learned English in a very late stage of my life.
Furthermore, the places where I learned it at, was not English at all.
Therefore, I learned 2nd hand English, and admit I am bad, Bad, Bad with that language.
Therefore, if this is the only critique you have, so be it.
I can speak, Afrikaans, English, and Zulu.
Zulu is my 2nd language.

How about you guys?

Your english is fine (so good, in fact, that I doubt that it's not your native language).  If your mastery of logic was anywhere near your mastery of language, you'd fit right in.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 06, 2018, 11:22:47 PM
Gassing humans was an off-label use of Zyklon B. It's labeled use was as insecticide.

Of course, it was fucking cyanide, so it's not as if this use was harmless.

Religion isn't harmless.  Chemistry (science) isn't harmless.  On the basis of harm you want to ban X, but not ban Y.  Y is that?

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 06, 2018, 05:03:18 AM
I suggest, Jason, stay away from movies such as Halloween, and get into comedies a bit.
This might teach you comedy when someone produces it to you.

So this is just a joke to you?  Here was me thinking that you were taking all that religious claptrap seriously!

Quote from: Jason78 on August 07, 2018, 04:39:11 PM
So this is just a joke to you?  Here was me thinking that you were taking all that religious claptrap seriously!

And I thought Tarzan could swing from branch to branch with ease.
How the heck can a mousetrap get to you?

Closer observation, and a better bait.

Quote from: Baruch on August 07, 2018, 04:13:52 AM
Religion isn't harmless.  Chemistry (science) isn't harmless.  On the basis of harm you want to ban X, but not ban Y.  Y is that?

Strawman. I don't want to ban either. I want to regulate both. We regulate what chemicals we put out, but we don't regulate what religions spew.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 08, 2018, 08:21:59 AM
Strawman. I don't want to ban either. I want to regulate both. We regulate what chemicals we put out, but we don't regulate what religions spew.

I am sure the Chinese Communist party supports your position.  Only Mao's Little Red Book allowed on Twitter.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 08, 2018, 08:21:59 AM
Strawman. I don't want to ban either. I want to regulate both. We regulate what chemicals we put out, but we don't regulate what religions spew.

Also, the solution to both kinds of harm is better education.  It not only doesn't take a doctorate in chemistry to understand that mixing bleach and ammonia is bad, it doesn't take a doctorate in chemistry to understand why mixing bleach and ammonia is bad.

Similarly, it doesn't take a doctorate in philosophy specializing in ethics to know that slavery, and the oppression of women and LGBTQ people is wrong -- and even with a divinity degree and a doctorate in apologetics, there is no way to make those morally acceptable.

Quote from: trdsf on August 08, 2018, 12:50:52 PM
Also, the solution to both kinds of harm is better education.  It not only doesn't take a doctorate in chemistry to understand that mixing bleach and ammonia is bad, it doesn't take a doctorate in chemistry to understand why mixing bleach and ammonia is bad.

Similarly, it doesn't take a doctorate in philosophy specializing in ethics to know that slavery, and the oppression of women and LGBTQ people is wrong -- and even with a divinity degree and a doctorate in apologetics, there is no way to make those morally acceptable.

but, but ... I find lots of things morally unacceptable, including things done by people who post here ... so ...

Quote from: trdsf on August 08, 2018, 12:50:52 PM
It not only doesn't take a doctorate in chemistry to understand that mixing bleach and ammonia is bad, it doesn't take a doctorate in chemistry to understand why mixing bleach and ammonia is bad.

Yeah. or bleach and vinegar, either! It makes chlorine gas.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 08, 2018, 01:38:26 PM
Yeah. or bleach and vinegar, either! It makes chlorine gas.

House wives are terrorists!  Who new?

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 08, 2018, 01:38:26 PM
Yeah. or bleach and vinegar, either! It makes chlorine gas.

Don't mix cleaning products, either.  I did that playing "chemist" with a friend when I was a kid.  We had mixed a cleaning product called Soilax, no longer manufactured I think, with Linco, a bleach.  My friend stuck his nose up to it when it was bubbling and took a whiff, then ran out of the basement coughing and choking .  Then his aunt came down and raised holy Hell after the smell got upstairs.  I think it might have made chorine gas, but I was too young to recognize the smell.  I'm not sure it was chorine, but it was horrible.

Edit: Yeah chlorine.  Soilax was basically ammonia.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3681/11217601314_74ca47cc39_b.jpg)
(https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images1/1/0907/26/vintage-linco-bleach-glass-bottle-amber-color-w_1_d71de56ad9944a30d8c76f36664b0b7c.jpg)

Kids are junior terrorists.  Just abort them before they are even born.

Quote from: Baruch on August 08, 2018, 08:09:16 PM
Kids are junior terrorists.  Just abort them before they are even born.

Yeah, it was a violent reaction too, the kind of reaction every young budding mad scientist dreams of.

Mixing dangerous chemicals and almost killing ourselves ten times over. Ah, good times. Good times.

(http://i.imgur.com/x6XzwfM.png)

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 06, 2018, 05:36:41 AM
And I can quote many people on their stance of the Bible. (http://reasonsforjesus.com/former-bible-burning-atheist-peter-hitchens-finds-jesus/)
Will it change the facts?
Why do you think quoting Asimov will be some hard core fact that the Bible is wrong?

First, the numbers of people supporting an idea is meaningless.  At one time, most people thought the Earth was flat. 
Second, Asimov was a knolwedge-oriented person.  He wrote a real science books, too.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 09, 2018, 04:38:52 AM
First, the numbers of people supporting an idea is meaningless.  At one time, most people thought the Earth was flat. 
Second, Asimov was a knolwedge-oriented person.  He wrote a real science books, too.

And college-level textbooks.  And a set of Biblical commentaries, too â€" which unsurprisingly are from a secular viewpoint rather than just assuming it's all true and trying to crowbar it into reality.

Quote from: trdsf on August 09, 2018, 06:13:09 AM
And college-level textbooks.  And a set of Biblical commentaries, too â€" which unsurprisingly are from a secular viewpoint rather than just assuming it's all true and trying to crowbar it into reality.

I think I have a couple of them.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 08, 2018, 07:16:33 AM
And I thought Tarzan could swing from branch to branch with ease.
How the heck can a mousetrap get to you?

Closer observation, and a better bait.

What is this?   A non-sequitur?

Quote from: Jason78 on August 09, 2018, 12:38:35 PM
What is this?   A non-sequitur?

Of course.  That what he and Buruch and others like him do.  Confuse, separate, and dissemble...

Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2018, 05:51:41 AM
Of course.  That what he and Buruch and others like him do.  Confuse, separate, and dissemble...

Are you saying that Mousetrap is a sock puppet for me?  Really?  I think you got your paw stuck in the honey jar again, Poo.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 09, 2018, 06:57:54 AM
I think I have a couple of them.

I have a lot of his fiction and non-fiction both (https://www.librarything.com/authorcloud.php?view=trdsf); Asimov has been my favorite author since I was twelve or so, and there's still a lot more of his books to obtain and read.

(fellow bibliophiles - I highly recommend LibraryThing for tracking your personal library; I have a lifetime account)

The only way to know if I read all of Asimov's books is to buy them all at once and start reading. Its either going to be "I read this one before", or "this is one that I missed".

I think most of us have a Bible laying around somewhere. MouseTrap do you mind sharing what science you got and where you found it in the Bible; just so we are all on the same page? ;-)

I'm not as much into science as Hakurei Reimu, but even I know Kant's science was outdated a long time ago. Kant you adjust?

BTW we wouldn't want you to run out of material, so here are a couple of places that are somewhere in the many topics on the forum: ( I don't know if anybody has compiled a list of all of them. obviously a few were discussed before I was around)

https://godisimaginary.com/index.htm

http://www.kyroot.com/?p=8#jesusseminar

This ...

"Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene." from above link to Jesus Seminar etc.

Now I don't know if those people existed, or if they had visionary experiences.  We do know that people have visionary experiences today, but we usually call them mental illness.  I have had minor paranormal experiences, but I don't rely on them for detailed information about "another world".  More commonly I have eidetic dreams.  They are suggestive to me that "things aren't as they seem to the secular eye".

Quote from: fencerider on August 17, 2018, 11:12:54 PM
The only way to know if I read all of Asimov's books is to buy them all at once and start reading. Its either going to be "I read this one before", or "this is one that I missed".

I re-read 'I, Robot' and the core Foundation trilogy once a year.  I always manage to find some idea I missed before.

Quote from: fencerider on August 17, 2018, 11:12:54 PM
I think most of us have a Bible laying around somewhere. MouseTrap do you mind sharing what science you got and where you found it in the Bible; just so we are all on the same page? ;-)

I know I still have my New American edition from (Catholic) high school floating around somewhere.  I have never actually read the King James, but that's a Protestant version and having been raised Catholic, it was heretical.  :)

Of course, even at my most practicing, believing Catholic (I considered seminary for a while in my teens and was an altar boy and a lector in my parish), I understood the bible could only be taken metaphorically, simply because taking it literally means denying the evidence of your own eyes and the implications of logic and reason, and I was convinced we were given senses and reasoning facility for... well, a reason.  They weren't to be ignored, anyway.

I think one of my favorite Asimov stories was The Last Question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question)

I think his metaphorical tongue was firmly ensconced in his metaphorical cheek on that one!

I have all of the following Asimov titles, covering the Robot, Empire and Foundation Series, in Audible audiobook format except for Robots and Empire, for which there is no Audible version.  I'm reading through them again, in the suggested sequence, after a few year hiatus.  I am currently reading The Stars, Like Dust.


The author himself, Isaac Asimov, wrote in the Author's Note of the Prelude to Foundation that he is providing a guide for those readers that might appreciate it since the books "were not written in the order in which (perhaps) they should be read." Therein, he offers the following chronological order:

   
• The Complete Robot (1982) Collection of 31 Short Stories about robots.
• The Caves of Steel (1954) His first Robot novel.
• The Naked Sun (1957) The second Robot novel.
• The Robots of Dawn (1983) The third Robot novel.
• Robots and Empire (1985) The fourth (final) Robot novel.
• The Currents of Space (1952) The first Empire novel.
• The Stars, Like Dust-- (1951) The second Empire novel.
• Pebble in the Sky (1950) The third and final Empire novel.
• Prelude to Foundation (1988) The first Foundation novel.
• Forward the Foundation (1992) The second Foundation novel. (Not in Asimov's list as it had not been written yet.)
• Foundation (1951) The third Foundation novel, comprised of 5 stories originally published between 1942-1949.
• Foundation and Empire (1952) The fourth Foundation novel, comprised of 2 stories originally published in 1945.
• Second Foundation (1953) The fifth Foundation novel, comprised of 2 stories originally published in 1948 and 1949.
• Foundation's Edge (1982) The sixth Foundation novel.
• Foundation and Earth (1983) The seventh Foundation novel.

All hail Asimov!  My favorite part of Foundation series was when the Mule showed up and it didn't matter!

All hail Hari Seldon!

Quote from: Cavebear on August 22, 2018, 06:07:15 AM
All hail Asimov!  My favorite part of Foundation series was when the Mule showed up and it didn't matter!

That part really freaked me out.  Everything was going along swimmingly, crises would happen and people would panic, but Hari Seldon's hologram would always give reassurance.  Then we got one hell of a crisis and the hologram was completely wrong!  The sudden realization that this was unforeseen, there's no plan in place to deal with it, and defeat is now a real possibility was just as jarring to me as it was to the Foundation.

Eventually things straighten out and you could say it didn't matter in the long haul, but in the short term it seemed to matter a great deal!  I suppose this was Asimov's critique of Great Man theory - that highly influential people have had a huge impact on society, changing to course of history as we know it.  In reality, we're all products of our environment and the inexorable tide of social and historical trends push us to one outcome or another, albeit with certain anomalies along the way.

Y'all don't get it, because you don't consider the cult of Hari Seldon as a religion.  His followers with access to the holograms were driving the ship.  The whole psychohistory was BS, to provide employment to his dishonest students.

Hari Seldon was a bit player in Asimov's writings.  The real hero was R. Danelle Olivaw.

Quote from: sdelsolray on August 22, 2018, 07:31:36 PM
Hari Seldon was a bit player in Asimov's writings.  The real hero was R. Danelle Olivaw.

Certainly the pivot around which the galaxy eventually turned.

There was a disturbing amount of mind control -- some of it quite aggressive -- going on in the extended Foundation universe.  R. Giskard was circumspect in Robots of Dawn, but by the end of Robots and Empire, he was quite cavalierly mentally pushing around not just random inconvenient humans, but his own mistress Gladia.  The Mule, of course, was indifferent to how his ability affected others.  I always though of Han Pritcher as the most tragic character in Foundation: despite his obvious abilities he was only briefly the master of his own fate.  Even after the Mule died, the Second Foundation never bothered to release him from the Mule's control â€" he's referred to in "...And Now You Don't" as having succeeded the Mule as First Citizen and warring with the (First) Foundation, so obviously he was never de-controlled even though we know the Second Foundation could break the Conversion.

Daneel at least appears to have used his control with more care and delicacy than Giskard did, but like Giskard did with Lije Baley, Daneel didn't hesitate to put the whammy on Seldon to prevent him from being able to talk about Daneel and his abilities.

Quote from: trdsf on August 23, 2018, 12:31:11 AM
Certainly the pivot around which the galaxy eventually turned.

There was a disturbing amount of mind control -- some of it quite aggressive -- going on in the extended Foundation universe.  R. Giskard was circumspect in Robots of Dawn, but by the end of Robots and Empire, he was quite cavalierly mentally pushing around not just random inconvenient humans, but his own mistress Gladia.  The Mule, of course, was indifferent to how his ability affected others.  I always though of Han Pritcher as the most tragic character in Foundation: despite his obvious abilities he was only briefly the master of his own fate.  Even after the Mule died, the Second Foundation never bothered to release him from the Mule's control â€" he's referred to in "...And Now You Don't" as having succeeded the Mule as First Citizen and warring with the (First) Foundation, so obviously he was never de-controlled even though we know the Second Foundation could break the Conversion.

Daneel at least appears to have used his control with more care and delicacy than Giskard did, but like Giskard did with Lije Baley, Daneel didn't hesitate to put the whammy on Seldon to prevent him from being able to talk about Daneel and his abilities.

I didn't remember that about Pritcher.  I might consider that the lack of his deprogramming helped the Foundation path get corrected.  Well, it's not like there weren't some flaws in the overall logic.    What if The Mule wasn't infertile, though.  Would his descendants beat the Second Foundation and beyond?

Actually, I think the whole concept fell apart after Second Foundation. 

Quote from: Cavebear on August 27, 2018, 06:51:06 AM
I didn't remember that about Pritcher.  I might consider that the lack of his deprogramming helped the Foundation path get corrected.  Well, it's not like there weren't some flaws in the overall logic.    What if The Mule wasn't infertile, though.  Would his descendants beat the Second Foundation and beyond?

Actually, I think the whole concept fell apart after Second Foundation.

Yeah, I really didn't care for the whole Gaia/Galaxia thing, nor did I really like any of the new characters in Foundation's Edge/Foundation and Earth.  Trevize was a jerk, and Bliss was too self-righteous by half, and Pelorat was something of a non-entity.

Spotty as they were, though, they were infinitely superior to Foundation's Fear, which completely put me off reading any of the other non-Asimov Foundation books, or anything else written by Benford.

Quote from: trdsf on August 27, 2018, 10:37:51 AM
Yeah, I really didn't care for the whole Gaia/Galaxia thing, nor did I really like any of the new characters in Foundation's Edge/Foundation and Earth.  Trevize was a jerk, and Bliss was too self-righteous by half, and Pelorat was something of a non-entity.

Spotty as they were, though, they were infinitely superior to Foundation's Fear, which completely put me off reading any of the other non-Asimov Foundation books, or anything else written by Benford.

I think I stopped reading the series before you did.  Or my memory is worse than I thought.  Both seem equal possibilities.

Quote from: trdsf on August 27, 2018, 10:37:51 AM
Yeah, I really didn't care for the whole Gaia/Galaxia thing, nor did I really like any of the new characters in Foundation's Edge/Foundation and Earth.  Trevize was a jerk, and Bliss was too self-righteous by half, and Pelorat was something of a non-entity.

I kinda liked the Galaxia idea.  It's an attempt to shore up some of the problems with the Empire and the Foundation.  Even if the Foundation were to fully blossom and became an amazingly forward-thinking and stable Empire, it's still an empire.  Empires inevitably rise and fall.  In order to head that off, you have to fundamentally change the nature of either the empire or humanity as a whole.  While the term "Gaia" has unfortunate and unscientific implications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis#Criticism), at least Asimov took the series in a new and unexpected direction.

I have a really sour impression of the end of the last book - not because of Asimov - but because while I was literally on the last few pages, the car I was in had some sort of problem and we had to pull off to the side of the road (I wasn't driving, btw).  I remember quickly skimming through the last two pages and my brother was looking to me to deal with the situation (there wasn't anything I could do except wait for the tow truck) and yelling at me for being distracted.  I hate being interrupted, even for relatively serious things.  Is it too much to ask to be left alone for a minute?

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 27, 2018, 10:51:08 PM
I kinda liked the Galaxia idea.  It's an attempt to shore up some of the problems with the Empire and the Foundation.  Even if the Foundation were to fully blossom and became an amazingly forward-thinking and stable Empire, it's still an empire.  Empires inevitably rise and fall.  In order to head that off, you have to fundamentally change the nature of either the empire or humanity as a whole.  While the term "Gaia" has unfortunate and unscientific implications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis#Criticism), at least Asimov took the series in a new and unexpected direction.

I have a hard time imagining Galaxia as being anything other than the end of human history without actually being the end of humanity.  And I was really disappointed with the reason for choosing Galaxia, which struck me as mundane and more than a little paranoid.

I would have preferred a Second Foundation-managed future where they would have continually calculated a better society as their understanding grew, while still preserving free will.  It never seemed to me that the Second Empire would have to stay an empire; I assumed the social/psychological science of the Second Foundation would advance, as the physical sciences did under the First Foundation.  After all, as presented in the last two books, the First Foundation was more a federation than an empire, and that suggested to me that the Second Empire would be an elective "monarchy" like the Holy Roman Empire rather than a hereditary one, probably retaining the title 'Mayor' out of historical momentum.  'Empire' struck me as a word of historical necessity rather than an actual description of the state, much like Japan has an emperor, but is a parliamentary democracy.

Good points.  Yeah, I suppose they could develop away from an empire in the traditional sense of the word.  And yes, the alien thing was a bit mental.

Though I do love some good sequel bait and the prospect of aliens was definitely an interesting possibility.  Maybe not invasion exactly, but alien influence...alien tampering with the galaxy as we know it could've had huge ramifications for the Seldon Plan that would dwarf the momentary ripple of the Mule.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 28, 2018, 12:23:47 AM
Good points.  Yeah, I suppose they could develop away from an empire in the traditional sense of the word.  And yes, the alien thing was a bit mental.

Though I do love some good sequel bait and the prospect of aliens was definitely an interesting possibility.  Maybe not invasion exactly, but alien influence...alien tampering with the galaxy as we know it could've had huge ramifications for the Seldon Plan that would dwarf the momentary ripple of the Mule.

As a fan, and as an Asimov fan particularly, I always thought it tragic that we never got to see his vision of the culmination of the Seldon Plan.  Of course, according to Janet Jeppson Asimov, when he killed off Hari Seldon at the end of Forward the Foundation, he kind of killed off himself, and was able to accept death at the age of 72.  In many ways, Seldon was Asimov's self-insert into his universe, especially viewed in the context of Prelude to Foundation and Forward the Foundation.

On the other hand, I am grateful that he avoided the literary disasters that Arthur C Clarke got into with Gentry Lee and the later Rama books â€" which, bluntly, sucked rocks at no less than 150 pounds per square inch.  Having read Clarke on his own, I can only blame Lee for the psychosexual mess that Rama II, Rama Revealed and Gardens of Rama were.  At least when Asimov worked with others to co-write novels, it was with definite geniuses like Silverberg.

Quote from: trdsf on August 28, 2018, 12:49:36 AM
As a fan, and as an Asimov fan particularly, I always thought it tragic that we never got to see his vision of the culmination of the Seldon Plan.  Of course, according to Janet Jeppson Asimov, when he killed off Hari Seldon at the end of Forward the Foundation, he kind of killed off himself, and was able to accept death at the age of 72.  In many ways, Seldon was Asimov's self-insert into his universe, especially viewed in the context of Prelude to Foundation and Forward the Foundation.

On the other hand, I am grateful that he avoided the literary disasters that Arthur C Clarke got into with Gentry Lee and the later Rama books â€" which, bluntly, sucked rocks at no less than 150 pounds per square inch.  Having read Clarke on his own, I can only blame Lee for the psychosexual mess that Rama II, Rama Revealed and Gardens of Rama were.  At least when Asimov worked with others to co-write novels, it was with definite geniuses like Silverberg.

I think I skimmed a description of Rama and said "no".  And that was when I was buying most any sci-fi book available in paperback (I was broke then).

I've lately been enjoying Charles Sheffield's Convergent Series, and Transvergence. Quite good!

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 08, 2018, 03:14:33 PM
I've lately been enjoying Charles Sheffield's Convergent Series, and Transvergence. Quite good!

I still have the 'Human' series by Robert Sawyer on my shelf begging to be read.  But I spend too much time here hobnobbing with my fellow wizards...

It seems to me that the most obvious biblical contradiction of all is the two creation stories.

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 07:08:22 AM
It seems to me that the most obvious biblical contradiction of all is the two creation stories.

Yes, they are very glaring.  But one of sooooooo many more. 

All of all religious texts are mostly contradicory.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 10:08:35 AM
All of all religious texts are mostly contradicory.

Anthologies of poetry usually are.  And fictional.

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2018, 12:45:36 PM
Anthologies of poetry usually are.  And fictional.

How nice that you agree.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 12:47:04 PM
How nice that you agree.

Humans invent things ... some of which is called fiction.  Politics is less nice than poetry however.  I don't think Vulcans could ken poetry ... they are too literal.

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2018, 12:48:29 PM
Humans invent things ... some of which is called fiction.  Politics is less nice than poetry however.  I don't think Vulcans could ken poetry ... they are too literal.

Vulcans are fictional.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 12:50:42 PM
Vulcans are fictional.

No Grey aliens are.  Vulcans have clearly infiltrated our society.  But they are mostly mathematicians.

Here's a queston: Does it count as fictional if it's not intended to be fictional?

If the goat herders who wrote the Bible were psychotic enough to actually believe that they were in touch with some higher power when they wrote what they wrote and they actually believed that their stories were literally true... then would it still be fiction?

If a book tries and fails to represent reality, isn't that just inaccurate non-fiction? Whether it's a story that's written or not?

If it's supposed to be a true story, and believed to be a true story by the writers of that story, but the story actually fails to be true, is that fiction?

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 01:28:33 PM
Here's a queston: Does it count as fictional if it's not intended to be fictional?

If the goat herders who wrote the Bible were psychotic enough to actually believe that they were in touch with some higher power when they wrote what they wrote and they actually believed that their stories were literally true... then would it still be fiction?

If a book tries and fails to represent reality, isn't that just inaccurate non-fiction? Whether it's a story that's written or not?

If it's supposed to be a true story, and believed to be a true story by the writers of that story, but the story actually fails to be true, is that fiction?

Yes
Yes
Maybe
Maybe

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 02:27:17 PM
Yes
Yes
Maybe
Maybe

Your first two answers appear to be inconsistent with your last two answers.

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 02:28:15 PM
Your first two answers appear to be inconsistent with your last two answers.

They are not.  Your individual questions had differences, and therefore separate answers.  The last two depend on knowledge and intent, I think.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 02:30:58 PM
They are not.  Your individual questions had differences, and therefore separate answers.  The last two depend on knowledge and intent, I think.

They appear to be inconsistent to me because the reason why the answer is "yes" to the first two questions appears to be the same reason the answers to the next two questions should also be "yes".

Yes, they the questions had differences, but did they have logically relevant differences?

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 02:34:45 PM
They appear to be inconsistent to me because the reason why the answer is "yes" to the first two questions appears to be the same reason the answers to the next two questions should also be "yes".

Yes, they the questions had differences, but did they have logically relevant differences?

In my opinion, yes.  In your opinion, no.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 27, 2018, 02:52:02 PM
In my opinion, yes.  In your opinion, no.

We both already know that we both have different opinions on this matter. The fact that we disagree on this matter already makes that obvious.

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 01:28:33 PM


If a book tries and fails to represent reality, isn't that just inaccurate non-fiction? Whether it's a story that's written or not?

I like your question.  Lets look at this part.  Let's take the bible as an example.  Who knows what the beliefs, thoughts or facts the authors were laboring under?  Who knows who the authors were, except for Paul?  This is a theist's fav. tactic--you believe the bible is not true (for them it is an 'of course it is fact!'), so prove it.  They are trying to shove their responsibility onto me; why should I try to disprove a fiction?  And it is for them to establish that the bible is not fiction--and they can't.  So they like to skip that step.  If I were to say to you that faeries are real and do exist; and when you disagree, I simply say, prove it--they DO exist.  Would that be a fair way to have a discussion about faeries? 

If those goat herders sincerely believed with all their hearts that they were simply repeating facts, does not make it so.  They need to provide some kind of proof--not beliefs.  People write non-fiction books all the time that are fiction--their beliefs and sincerity does not establish one single fact.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 27, 2018, 03:14:38 PM
I like your question.  Lets look at this part.  Let's take the bible as an example.  Who knows what the beliefs, thoughts or facts the authors were laboring under?  Who knows who the authors were, except for Paul?  This is a theist's fav. tactic--you believe the bible is not true (for them it is an 'of course it is fact!'), so prove it.  They are trying to shove their responsibility onto me; why should I try to disprove a fiction?  And it is for them to establish that the bible is not fiction--and they can't.  So they like to skip that step.

The way I see it is... the bible may or may not be fiction... as the authors may or may not have intended for it to be a made-up story.... but regardless of whether the bible is fiction or not, it certainly isn't factual, and it certainly is nonsense.

I guess I consider fiction to be something that is intentionally transparently represented to be untrue.

Fiction starts with making it transparent that "This is not a true story."

Look at it this way: For something to be false it has to simply not be true. For something to be a lie it has to be intentionally untrue but presented as if it's true in order to deceive others. For something to be fiction it has to be intentionally untrue but transparently presented as such so that everyone knows it's just a story.

I think that if the bible authors genuinely believed what they wrote... then the bible is nonsense but the writers of the bible were not liars, nor is the bible a work of fiction.

I think that if the bible authors didn't believe what they wrote, but they intentionally misrepresented what they wrote as truth... then the bible is a work of deception, and a way to con people (and perhaps control primitive people)... but it's not fiction.

I think that if the bible authors didn't believe what they wrote, but they presented what they wrote as not true and just a story... then either somehow everyone else around them forgot that it was just a story... or people used to know it was just a story but many years later everyone forgot that it was just a story.... or the bible authors presented it as just a story, and a work of fiction, but no one believed them and others insisted that it was true. This would be very bizarre. But it's not impossible... as it's rather similar to how people who deny that they're a guru or deny that they're a messiah tend to only strengthen the conviction in others that they are some sort of guru, or that they are the messiah . .  . in any case, if one of these options is true then I'd say that the bible is indeed a work of fiction.

Regardless of which is the case, the bible isn't factual, and it certainly doesn't represent reality.

If everything that isn't factual is fictional... then the bible is indeed fictional.

But I think that there's more to the meaning of "fictional" than that. I think that's why we have fiction versus non-fiction... rather than fiction versus factual, in the book stores. Some people may write non-fiction that turns out to be far from factual... and some may write fictional stories that accidentally turn out to be true.

QuoteIf I were to say to you that faeries are real and do exist; and when you disagree, I simply say, prove it--they DO exist.  Would that be a fair way to have a discussion about faeries?

It would be irrational for you to put the onus on me... so in that sense it would be unfair. 

QuoteIf those goat herders sincerely believed with all their hearts that they were simply repeating facts, does not make it so.

Indeed. Even if the bible isn't a work of fiction, is still far from factual.

QuoteThey need to provide some kind of proof--not beliefs.  People write non-fiction books all the time that are fiction--their beliefs and sincerity does not establish one single fact.

I notice you are using two different senses of "fiction" there. As, of course, a book can't be both fiction and not fiction in the same sense. And that was the point of my question.

There are many books that are non-fictional in the sense that they are intended to represent fact... but they are fictional in the sense that they don't actually represent fact.

Basically, my question comes down to, do failures to represent fact go in the fiction section? Or do only stories intended to be just stories go in the fiction section?

I don't usually do this, but for what it's worth:

Quotefic·tion
/ˈfikSH(ə)n/

noun: fiction
1. literature in the form of prose, especially short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people.

2. invention or fabrication as opposed to fact.
synonyms: fabrication, invention, lies, fibs, untruth, falsehood, fantasy, nonsense

3.a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.

antonyms: fact

I realize this probably resolves nothing.

Quote from: SGOS on September 27, 2018, 03:51:00 PM
I don't usually do this, but for what it's worth:

I realize this probably resolves nothing.

Yes, it doesn't... as an antonym is merely the direct opposite of a synonym and a synonym is not a homonym. Basically, if a word has an antonym then it just means that that word refers to the opposite of something similar.

The really relevant thing, and the problem here, is the fact that there's more than one sense of "fiction" and each sense will have different opposites. The most logical opposite being the direct absence of itself.

Basically, we need to create true rather than false dichotomies... but we can only create true dichotomies to each specific sense of a word, as different senses are not identical to each other, as if they were identical they wouldn't even be different senses.

This is also why dictionaries are better than thesauruses if you want to actually know the meanings of words, rather than just try and find similar words, or opposite meanings to similar words. Thesauruses can make your head spin if you're not careful. If you want to develop a mind full of equivocations, then learn meanings of words through thesauruses rather than dictionaries.

Read the dictionary of Samuel Johnson, Voltaire or Ambrose Beirce ... you will swear off dictionaries and strong drink, if you do.

Many of the entries in the OED were written by a psychotic.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5932728/

All of philosophy is about language and how it is used and misused.  Otherwise philosophers have nothing to say -- my paraphrase of Wittgenstein.

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 01:28:33 PM
Here's a queston: Does it count as fictional if it's not intended to be fictional?

If the goat herders who wrote the Bible were psychotic enough to actually believe that they were in touch with some higher power when they wrote what they wrote and they actually believed that their stories were literally true... then would it still be fiction?

If a book tries and fails to represent reality, isn't that just inaccurate non-fiction? Whether it's a story that's written or not?

If it's supposed to be a true story, and believed to be a true story by the writers of that story, but the story actually fails to be true, is that fiction?

Outstanding question.  Can you give us a post-modern answer ala Derrida?  Other post-WW II European Continental philosophers are relevant, for extra credit.

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 04:51:12 PM
Yes, it doesn't... as an antonym is merely the direct opposite of a synonym and a synonym is not a homonym. Basically, if a word has an antonym then it just means that that word refers to the opposite of something similar.

The really relevant thing, and the problem here, is the fact that there's more than one sense of "fiction" and each sense will have different opposites. The most logical opposite being the direct absence of itself.

Basically, we need to create true rather than false dichotomies... but we can only create true dichotomies to each specific sense of a word, as different senses are not identical to each other, as if they were identical they wouldn't even be different senses.

This is also why dictionaries are better than thesauruses if you want to actually know the meanings of words, rather than just try and find similar words, or opposite meanings to similar words. Thesauruses can make your head spin if you're not careful. If you want to develop a mind full of equivocations, then learn meanings of words through thesauruses rather than dictionaries.

Can you give me an example of how fiction = fact, or an example of how fact = fiction.  I understand you presented a list somewhere of your definitions, but I'm not going to search for it.  A little copy/paste on your end would be helpful.

Quote from: SGOS on September 27, 2018, 07:15:44 PM
Can you give me an example of how fiction = fact, or an example of how fact = fiction.  I understand you presented a list somewhere of your definitions, but I'm not going to search for it.  A little copy/paste on your end would be helpful.

I think he means pragmatically, which is ironic, because he claims he is opposed to pragmatism ;-)

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 03:37:58 PM
The way I see it is... the bible may or may not be fiction... as the authors may or may not have intended for it to be a made-up story.... but regardless of whether the bible is fiction or not, it certainly isn't factual, and it certainly is nonsense.

I guess I consider fiction to be something that is intentionally transparently represented to be untrue.

Fiction starts with making it transparent that "This is not a true story."

Look at it this way: For something to be false it has to simply not be true. For something to be a lie it has to be intentionally untrue but presented as if it's true in order to deceive others. For something to be fiction it has to be intentionally untrue but transparently presented as such so that everyone knows it's just a story.

I think that if the bible authors genuinely believed what they wrote... then the bible is nonsense but the writers of the bible were not liars, nor is the bible a work of fiction.

I think that if the bible authors didn't believe what they wrote, but they intentionally misrepresented what they wrote as truth... then the bible is a work of deception, and a way to con people (and perhaps control primitive people)... but it's not fiction.

I think that if the bible authors didn't believe what they wrote, but they presented what they wrote as not true and just a story... then either somehow everyone else around them forgot that it was just a story... or people used to know it was just a story but many years later everyone forgot that it was just a story.... or the bible authors presented it as just a story, and a work of fiction, but no one believed them and others insisted that it was true. This would be very bizarre. But it's not impossible... as it's rather similar to how people who deny that they're a guru or deny that they're a messiah tend to only strengthen the conviction in others that they are some sort of guru, or that they are the messiah . .  . in any case, if one of these options is true then I'd say that the bible is indeed a work of fiction.

Regardless of which is the case, the bible isn't factual, and it certainly doesn't represent reality.

If everything that isn't factual is fictional... then the bible is indeed fictional.

But I think that there's more to the meaning of "fictional" than that. I think that's why we have fiction versus non-fiction... rather than fiction versus factual, in the book stores. Some people may write non-fiction that turns out to be far from factual... and some may write fictional stories that accidentally turn out to be true.

It would be irrational for you to put the onus on me... so in that sense it would be unfair. 

Indeed. Even if the bible isn't a work of fiction, is still far from factual.

I notice you are using two different senses of "fiction" there. As, of course, a book can't be both fiction and not fiction in the same sense. And that was the point of my question.

There are many books that are non-fictional in the sense that they are intended to represent fact... but they are fictional in the sense that they don't actually represent fact.

Basically, my question comes down to, do failures to represent fact go in the fiction section? Or do only stories intended to be just stories go in the fiction section?

We could be doing the semantic dance here. :)  We don't know and can't know what the intent of the authors of any of the bible was; but we know what the outcome is.  And we can make some pretty good guesses as to why the bible content was selected from the huge amount of material they could draw from; and why the material that was not used was destroyed (as much as they could).  Clearly the material was manipulated on purpose; why else would the extra material be destroyed?  That adds up to fiction presented as fact and used to control the acts and minds of a large number of people, 

Also, I have read very few novels that tell me anywhere in the story that it is fiction.  That's why book stores have fiction and non-fiction sections.  I don't remember any of the sci-fi/fantasy books telling me they were fictional.  Seems to me that a book can be fiction no matter the intent of the author.

The great mythologies of today, are all recognized as fiction, although at the time of their creation they were either thought to be truth, passed off as truth, or intended to be truth.  None the less, they are now recognized as fiction.  OK, a few people probably think they are true stories, but what can you do to accommodate such people?  Best to leave them alone.  As a matter of practicality, their beliefs don't count.  They have no evidence to support them, and they don't qualify as fact.

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 04:51:12 PMan antonym is merely the direct opposite of a synonym and a synonym

Antonym is the antonym of synonym.  :P

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2018, 07:10:54 PM
All of philosophy is about language and how it is used and misused.  Otherwise philosophers have nothing to say -- my paraphrase of Wittgenstein.

But because we use language to make sense of our world... and philosophy helps us deal with making sense of our language... philosophy is therefore very important.

It can be said that once something becomes truly useful it ceases to be philosophy. This may be so, but this doesn't change the fact that science, mathematics and logic all birthed out of philosophy.

And philosophers can also directly help the sciences. The most obvious contribution being Karl Popper's theory of falsifiability. Before the philosopher Karl Pooper helped out scientists were essentially doing the equivalent to doing their best to refer that all swans were white by finding enough white swans. Since Popper stepped in scientists now instead do the equivlialent of discovering that all swans aren't white by finding one swan that isn't white. Falsifiability theory is vastly superior to verificationism. It's the same with logic... you only have to find one contradiction to know that something isn't the case. And the only true way to confirm that something is certain is to prove that the opposite is impossible.

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2018, 07:12:08 PM
Outstanding question.  Can you give us a post-modern answer ala Derrida?  Other post-WW II European Continental philosophers are relevant, for extra credit.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I don't know of Derrida and I'm a critic of post-modernism. It seems to have far too much in common with pragmatism for my liking. I'm not a fan of defining reality inside of "what works", there's more to reality than our own narrow motives, or indeed our motives however noble or ignoble, however deep or shallow. We may think that we've figured out what really matters and is really useful and call that "truth", and yet what actually may be most useful may be outside of what we defined to be useful... so I find pragmatism self-defeating even in its own terms, if we consider it's goals. Ironically, some of the most useful ideas are had by those who aren't searching for a useful idea. Sometimes people are inspired by something or enjoy seeking the truth for its own sake, and it turns out to be useful of a side effect. I am no fan of what I know of post-modernism either, as, from what I've seen, it seems to have similar problems. It seems self-serving in a way that ignores reality.

Quote from: SGOS on September 27, 2018, 07:15:44 PM
Can you give me an example of how fiction = fact, or an example of how fact = fiction.  I understand you presented a list somewhere of your definitions, but I'm not going to search for it.  A little copy/paste on your end would be helpful.

Fiction could be a fact by accident. Say, someone made up a story that they believed was just a made up story and then it turned out to be true.

It sounds bizarre.

But science fiction is the best example of this that I can think of. Of course 99% of the time (at least) science fiction is completely over the top. But, even if we're only being hypothetical, imagine a case where a science fiction novel is written about particular futuristic technology being around by, say, the year 2048... and then imagine that that technology actually comes about by the year 2048. There may also be a lot of stories that aren't factual in that non-fiction book... but the point is that fiction refers to something that is intended to not be factual, and is just meant to be a story...

It's kind of similar to how someone can intentionally lie about something and turn out to be right by accident. In other words, they weren't 'telling the truth', but they accidentally said something that was true.

I'm not saying fact is fiction or fiction is fact. I'm saying that the true dichotomy is fiction and non-fiction (which may be why they are categorized that way . . . ) rather than fiction and factual.

The other way around would be an example like the Bible, if it was indeed not intended as fiction. If the writers of the Bible really believed that they were writing something that represented reality, and it wasn't just a made-up story, then they intended it to be non-fiction, and it is thus classified as non-fiction even if it's not remotely factual.

This is also why pseudo-scientific books can go in the non-fiction section even though they're a load of nonsense. They're attempts at being factual. And likewise, even if someone wrote a fictional novel that was accidental prophecy and predicted everything that it made-up in the novel... it would still be fiction. As it was intended to just be a story. On the other hand, a book making predictions about the future that all turn out to be nonsense, is non-fiction, regardless of how right or wrong those fictions are.

Dictionaries track usage of definitions... they don't create definitions. And people most definitely do use 'fiction' to refer to something intended to just be a story and definitely do use 'non-fiction' to refer to that which is supposed to be factual, whether it succeeds or not (again, this is why pseudo-science books aren't in the fiction section).

But, for what it's worth, from the Google dictionary:

"Relating to or occurring in fiction; invented for the purposes of fiction."

My bold added. This is the sense of 'fictional' that I'm referring to.

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 28, 2018, 05:07:54 PM
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I don't know of Derrida and I'm a critic of post-modernism. It seems to have far too much in common with pragmatism for my liking. I'm not a fan of defining reality inside of "what works", there's more to reality than our own narrow motives, or indeed our motives however noble or ignoble, however deep or shallow. We may think that we've figured out what really matters and is really useful and call that "truth", and yet what actually may be most useful may be outside of what we defined to be useful... so I find pragmatism self-defeating even in its own terms, if we consider it's goals. Ironically, some of the most useful ideas are had by those who aren't searching for a useful idea. Sometimes people are inspired by something or enjoy seeking the truth for its own sake, and it turns out to be useful of a side effect. I am no fan of what I know of post-modernism either, as, from what I've seen, it seems to have similar problems. It seems self-serving in a way that ignores reality.

OK.  But the point of analysis of texts is deconstruction.  But you aren't talking about analysis of texts?  And as a realist ... vs an anti-realist for example ... you believe that actual abstract truths can be posited without reference to empiricism?  Aside from logic and mathematics of course?

i am afraid that Kant's a priori vs a posteriori is rather obsolete.  He thought that Euclidean geometry not only was the only geometry, but also the one that corresponds to physical reality.  We now know that neither are true.  And a posteriori is tricky too, because our a priori models partially condition how we do empiricism (see hidden markov model analysis of statistical data).

Quote from: luckswallowsall on September 27, 2018, 04:51:12 PM
Yes, it doesn't... as an antonym is merely the direct opposite of a synonym and a synonym is not a homonym. Basically, if a word has an antonym then it just means that that word refers to the opposite of something similar.

The really relevant thing, and the problem here, is the fact that there's more than one sense of "fiction" and each sense will have different opposites. The most logical opposite being the direct absence of itself.

Basically, we need to create true rather than false dichotomies... but we can only create true dichotomies to each specific sense of a word, as different senses are not identical to each other, as if they were identical they wouldn't even be different senses.

This is also why dictionaries are better than thesauruses if you want to actually know the meanings of words, rather than just try and find similar words, or opposite meanings to similar words. Thesauruses can make your head spin if you're not careful. If you want to develop a mind full of equivocations, then learn meanings of words through thesauruses rather than dictionaries.

Don't underestimate a thesaurus.  Context can be enlightening.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2018, 09:40:28 AM
Context can be enlightening.

This should be considered before one launches into a pedantic semantic ramble.  Does a person truly not understand, or does he just want to up his post count? 

Quote from: SGOS on October 01, 2018, 11:24:26 AM
This should be considered before one launches into a pedantic semantic ramble.  Does a person truly not understand, or does he just want to up his post count?

Wrong perpetrator ... wall-of-text posts generally aren't worth it.  You would think to write an essay, they had taken time to think it thru .. but since cut-and-paste literacy has been all downhill ;-(

Quote from: SGOS on October 01, 2018, 11:24:26 AM
This should be considered before one launches into a pedantic semantic ramble.  Does a person truly not understand, or does he just want to up his post count?

Baruch makes me do it.  I am totally innocent, innocent I say!.  If I ignore him, I get complaints.  If I respond, I get complaints.  Some things, you can't win. 

I think Baruch is a master of catachresis.

Quote from: Unbeliever on October 01, 2018, 02:20:46 PM
I think Baruch is a master of catachresis.

LOL!  I had to look THAT one up.  And I'm still not sure.  Like "spoonerisms" or "malapropisms"?  Like "surfacing" a submarine?  I don't think I'm understanding this one quite right.

According to my Orphic app, which has lots of obscure words, it means "misuse or strained use of words, as in a mixed metaphor, occurring either in error of for rhetorical effect."

It seems to me that Baruch does that kind of thing a lot.

Quote from: Unbeliever on October 01, 2018, 02:36:43 PM
According to my Orphic app, which has lots of obscure words, it means "misuse or strained use of words, as in a mixed metaphor, occurring either in error of for rhetorical effect."

It seems to me that Baruch does that kind of thing a lot.

Total agreement on that...

Quote from: Unbeliever on October 01, 2018, 02:36:43 PM
According to my Orphic app, which has lots of obscure words, it means "misuse or strained use of words, as in a mixed metaphor, occurring either in error of for rhetorical effect."

It seems to me that Baruch does that kind of thing a lot.

I am a poet, and nobody know it.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2018, 02:19:24 PM
Baruch makes me do it.  I am totally innocent, innocent I say!.  If I ignore him, I get complaints.  If I respond, I get complaints.  Some things, you can't win.

Setting up no-win situations and getting chumps to buy in, is how civilization moves forward.  And I don't even have any Infinity Stones!

Quote from: Unbeliever on October 01, 2018, 02:20:46 PM
I think Baruch is a master of catachresis.

"the use of a word in a way that is not correct, for example, the use of mitigate for militate."

No, you are guilty of it this time.  What I am guilty of is "poetic license", which isn't the same thing at all.  And it is like 007, a license to kill boredom.

Continuing the Churchill/MI6 motif ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju_by-sC79c

I was a minor player in my youth, but a player.  I worked for Q, not M.

Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2018, 06:50:21 PM
I worked for Q, not M.

But you've done some work with QM?

Quote from: Unbeliever on October 01, 2018, 08:25:50 PM
But you've done some work with QM?

Allusion to the Bond movies ...

I am more like Thor than Ant Man.

He hit his hand with his awesome hammer, and had a thor thumb...

Quote from: Unbeliever on October 02, 2018, 01:17:17 PM
He hit his hand with his awesome hammer, and had a thor thumb...

More accurate than the usual "hit self in head" practiced here ;-)

You hit the nail on the head! LOL

I cringe more at word-shifting.  Meaning when people transfer a word in a phrase they don't know correctly to one that is almost right.

Doodling for dawdling for example, or nip it in the butt, statue of limitations, for all intensive purposes, etc...

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 05:25:50 AM
I cringe more at word-shifting.  Meaning when people transfer a word in a phrase they don't know correctly to one that is almost right.

Doodling for dawdling for example, or nip it in the butt, statue of limitations, for all intensive purposes, etc...

I do a lot of that for comic effect.  Sorry about that, but I won't stop being me, I don't expect you to change either.

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2018, 06:35:54 AM
I do a lot of that for comic effect.  Sorry about that, but I won't stop being me, I don't expect you to change either.

Well, yes "comic effect" IS your specialty.  I just wish it weren't.  And I note you do less of it when we are cross-posting.  I'm your "Good Effect". 

Don't take that to mean more bad jokes.  You can be interesting when thoughtful.