Freethought & Rationalism Archive

-Jay- · 12-21-2007, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Can I guess the answer?

Uh-Uh, you are wrong. Look at how many people have lived in the few thousand years that people have lived, and where is all their poo? Besides, the bible doesn't mention people pooing, so it didn't happen.

:worried: :wide:

Unless ... that is what was meant by manna ?

Hey, now! No shouting out the answers during the quiz.

There was an <..ahem..> interesting thread a few months back that addressed this in some detail. (Look for posts by Hex.) Read at your own risk and take proper precautions - the stupid is very hot.

regards,

NinJay

Doug Shaver · 12-21-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Your credibility in presumed until someone shows it isn't ok. [Emphasis added.]

What does the underlined phrase mean?

badger3k · 12-21-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Can I guess the answer?

Uh-Uh, you are wrong. Look at how many people have lived in the few thousand years that people have lived, and where is all their poo? Besides, the bible doesn't mention people pooing, so it didn't happen.

:worried: :wide:

Unless ... that is what was meant by manna ?

Hey, now! No shouting out the answers during the quiz.

There was an <..ahem..> interesting thread a few months back that addressed this in some detail. (Look for posts by Hex.) Read at your own risk and take proper precautions - the stupid is very hot.

regards,

NinJay

Wow

I'd forgotten about the resident Messiah. Unfortunately, I could only make it halfway through before the burn got too bad. Have to try to finish it later. Thanks for the link.

-Jay- · 12-22-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Hey, now! No shouting out the answers during the quiz.

There was an <..ahem..> interesting thread a few months back that addressed this in some detail. (Look for posts by Hex.) Read at your own risk and take proper precautions - the stupid is very hot.

regards,

NinJay

Wow

I'd forgotten about the resident Messiah. Unfortunately, I could only make it halfway through before the burn got too bad. Have to try to finish it later. Thanks for the link.

I kinda wonder what happened to him. He appeared to go completely berserk, was banned at one point, then he wasn't, then he dropped off the face of the Earth. Maybe he got raptured or something.

In any event, once you make it through the actual informative posts in the thread, it should be obvious that the glaring lack of evidence for any large encampment in the area is pretty damning. It's not a problem for the determined apologist, I suppose, but then few things are.

regards,

NinJay

Robert Byers · 12-28-2007, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

These liars on the streets before they were discovered as liars were people /witnesses in good standing.

No they weren't. They were liars back then too - merely because nobody had discovered it, does not change the fact that they were liars. What kind of nonsense is that?

In the court of law you have to establish credibility first.

Afraid you're wrong about that. The first thing an attorney will do is called PTD - pre-trial deposition. At that time, they ask a series of questions of the person who wants to give testimony, to determine whether they are knowledgeable, or just blowing smoke.

Just one more thing that you're ignorant of.

Quote:

Your credibility in presumed until someone shows it isn't ok.

Sadly wrong.

You skipped this part:

Says who? Show me a breakdown of iron-age battles where no evidence was found.

You mean kinda like your excuse about items decaying over time - you were guessing and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

"Any number of reasons"? Fine - then invoke those reasons - and watch your so-called 'reasons' get shot down like clay pigeons on an artillery range.

Fine. Let the witness be cross-examined. Until this takes place it is a witness in good standing.
This is not about present legal standards. It is about simple everday witnessing of events.
If I tell everyone this or that happens I should and will be accepted until some questioning reveals I'm a fraud/liar.
In order to dismiss the bible as a witness you must show why it lacks credibility. We don't have to show it has credibility to offer it as a witness.
This is where it comes down .
Rob byers

Robert Byers · 12-28-2007, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

2.5M people camped in one location for 38 years and zero evidence left behind?

For perspective, Robert, the population of the state of Nevada is right at 2.5M. Rhode Island has a little over 1M. You apparently have no appreciation for just how much crap (both literally and figuratively) that many people generate. If they were there, the evidence would be clear.

regards,

NinJay

The bible says there were strict sanitation laws.
How do you know what would be left by a large group of people for a small amount of time?
Where is the comparison to show what there should be?
Envirorment, location accuracy, and many reasons could account for not finding stuff.
Anyways this requires study which I've never done.
Rob Byers

Robert Byers · 12-28-2007, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

I'll try this one point you brought up.
You are saying a witness can not be in good standing until this is established.
I say this the rub of what we disagree about.
I say the bible and anyone who tells you something is a witness in good standing because their credibility must be presumed to be intact.
Your saying a witness must first be proven to be credible before they can even be received as a witness with potential truth.
This defeats the whole purpose of a witness.

No. No. No. A witness must be shown to have a way of knowing what the witness reports. "Where were you on the night of the fifth..." If the witness cannot be shown to have an opportunity to know, then the person is not a witness.

We are not dealing with information per se. We are dealing with information in a context. If the person supplying the information cannot be placed in a position of knowledge the information in itself cannot be validated and therefore the information provider is not a witness.

The advocate selects the person with information in such a way as to use him/her as a witness. If a person is presented in court without validation the information is thrown out. The jury is advised to disregard the information and the advocate is cautioned for introducing inadmissible information.

People consider all sorts of information. It is then vetted for relevance.

Once validated.

A validated testimony is then debated for its value.

It is not a matter of credibility per se, but of validation. This is prepared before the testimony and the first thing done is that that validation is demonstrated. Only then can the witness testify.

Neither am I. A witness must be validated, shown to have a way of having relevant knowledge. The value of that information can then be discussed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

One must presume the bible is a good witness until shown it is not.

As with the courts, history simply doesn't work that way. One has to show the validity of the testimony before being able to use it. When you cannot say when a text was written, whether it was written by one person or by many over a long period of time, where it was written, for whom it was written, what the desired result of the writers was when writing, it is exceptionally hard to introduce much of anything from the bible as validated testimony of a specific past under investigation.

The best chance texts that can be validated were omitted from the protestant bible, 1 & 2 Maccabees. In the real world Daniel can be dated with precision to prior to 164 BCE, though in the inerrantist galaxy, that can't be given. Chronicles was written after the last mentioned person (about the 14th generation of the Davidic line, 1 Chr 3, after the exile), but probably long after that. Deuteronomy talks about going back to Egypt in ships, 28:68, a fact which refers to slaving in the post exilic period. I can see why you are not interested in the important notion of witness validation, but prefer to go with the naive notion of any witness being of good standing until shown not to be. The hopes of validating many parts of the bible seem so slim.

spin

Now the word is validation.
This is not a difficult concept we are talking about.
If the bible or any account from someone is offered as a witness to events then in real life it is a legitamate entity to be a witness.
In life or in law this witness is in good standing unless shown otherwise.
Show otherwise with your questions.However your questions means it has been received as our witness.
There is no pre-trial in this issue. There is no validation trial.
there is only one trial. This is a witness for our side and it must be received. If this wasn't so there would be no debates on these forumns.

Your trying to say the bible is just a neutral document and not permissable as a witness in court. In order to show it is a good wtness you would need other evidence that by definition precludes the need for the bible.

The bible is like a guy talking. We decide to use this guy. Any of your questioning of him is only during the trial and not in some pre thing to establish his credibility.
This guy/bible is a professed witness. Plain and simple.
One would not question him if one did not accept him as at least a potential witness. Why else this questioning?
The bible is like a person telling you something important.
It can be used by us as a witness and so you must recieve our witness.
Then prove they are false.
Rob byers

spin · 12-28-2007, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Let the witness be cross-examined. Until this takes place it is a witness in good standing.
This is not about present legal standards. It is about simple everday witnessing of events.

You are peddling low standards in your scholarly efforts to understand what happened in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

If I tell everyone this or that happens I should and will be accepted until some questioning reveals I'm a fraud/liar.
In order to dismiss the bible as a witness you must show why it lacks credibility. We don't have to show it has credibility to offer it as a witness.
This is where it comes down .

You've been working this mistake for too long, Robert Byers. It confuses validation with credibility. They are not the same thing. First you need to validate the witness. That's what any lawyer does: they show to the jury how the witness can know what they claim to. "Where were you on the night of the fifth?"

Once the witness has been validated or credentialed, testimony is weighed for its credibility. Before the witness can speak in court the lawyer has to have prepared for witness validation and then demonstrate validation before the witness says anything.

You have attempted to put uncredentialed witnesses in the box. The court does not listen to uncredentialed witnesses. You are wasting the court's time. You have been cautioned.

spin

spin · 12-28-2007, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

No. No. No. A witness must be shown to have a way of knowing what the witness reports. "Where were you on the night of the fifth..." If the witness cannot be shown to have an opportunity to know, then the person is not a witness.

We are not dealing with information per se. We are dealing with information in a context. If the person supplying the information cannot be placed in a position of knowledge the information in itself cannot be validated and therefore the information provider is not a witness.

The advocate selects the person with information in such a way as to use him/her as a witness. If a person is presented in court without validation the information is thrown out. The jury is advised to disregard the information and the advocate is cautioned for introducing inadmissible information.

People consider all sorts of information. It is then vetted for relevance.

Once validated.

A validated testimony is then debated for its value.

It is not a matter of credibility per se, but of validation. This is prepared before the testimony and the first thing done is that that validation is demonstrated. Only then can the witness testify.

Neither am I. A witness must be validated, shown to have a way of having relevant knowledge. The value of that information can then be discussed.

As with the courts, history simply doesn't work that way. One has to show the validity of the testimony before being able to use it. When you cannot say when a text was written, whether it was written by one person or by many over a long period of time, where it was written, for whom it was written, what the desired result of the writers was when writing, it is exceptionally hard to introduce much of anything from the bible as validated testimony of a specific past under investigation.

The best chance texts that can be validated were omitted from the protestant bible, 1 & 2 Maccabees. In the real world Daniel can be dated with precision to prior to 164 BCE, though in the inerrantist galaxy, that can't be given. Chronicles was written after the last mentioned person (about the 14th generation of the Davidic line, 1 Chr 3, after the exile), but probably long after that. Deuteronomy talks about going back to Egypt in ships, 28:68, a fact which refers to slaving in the post exilic period. I can see why you are not interested in the important notion of witness validation, but prefer to go with the naive notion of any witness being of good standing until shown not to be. The hopes of validating many parts of the bible seem so slim.

spin

Now the word is validation.
This is not a difficult concept we are talking about.
If the bible or any account from someone is offered as a witness to events then in real life it is a legitamate entity to be a witness.
In life or in law this witness is in good standing unless shown otherwise.
Show otherwise with your questions.However your questions means it has been received as our witness.
There is no pre-trial in this issue. There is no validation trial.
there is only one trial. This is a witness for our side and it must be received. If this wasn't so there would be no debates on these forumns.

Your trying to say the bible is just a neutral document and not permissable as a witness in court. In order to show it is a good wtness you would need other evidence that by definition precludes the need for the bible.

The bible is like a guy talking. We decide to use this guy. Any of your questioning of him is only during the trial and not in some pre thing to establish his credibility.
This guy/bible is a professed witness. Plain and simple.
One would not question him if one did not accept him as at least a potential witness. Why else this questioning?
The bible is like a person telling you something important.
It can be used by us as a witness and so you must recieve our witness.
Then prove they are false.

Further example of the problem you are having.

A person comes to the lawyer and says I saw the crime. The lawyer says, "where were you on the fifth" and the person says, "I don't know." What do you do, Robert Byers? Present the person as a witness?

spin

Lógos Sokratikós · 12-28-2007, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

2.5M people camped in one location for 38 years and zero evidence left behind? Horseshit.

For perspective, Robert, the population of the state of Nevada is right at 2.5M. Rhode Island has a little over 1M. You apparently have no appreciation for just how much crap (both literally and figuratively) that many people generate. If they were there, the evidence would be clear.

regards,

NinJay

Can I guess the answer?

Uh-Uh, you are wrong. Look at how many people have lived in the few thousand years that people have lived, and where is all their poo? Besides, the bible doesn't mention people pooing, so it didn't happen.

:worried: :wide:

Unless ... that is what was meant by manna ?

If Christians are smart, this should go down in history as "the argument from poo". Just for fun: "argumentum ab merda".

:devil1:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.