Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theophilus · 01-10-2002, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
More clumsy footwork from theophilus. Rather than addressing the question, he now flatly states that atheists simply have no right to question the canonization process. This is nonsense.

I don't think I said "right." I said they "can't" because they lack an adequate epistemological foundation for asserting knowledge about anything. They have no way to know what books ought to be cannonized or not. As atheists, they have no basis for asserting their own existence or that their most recent memories are true of things which happened in the past.

Theophilus, will you please explain why the Book of Ezra is "scripture" while the Temple Scroll and the Book of Enoch are not? No more dodging!

No. This is a theological question and can only be meaningful to believers.

Incidentally, are you ever going to furnish your "proof" that your thoughts are not controlled by an extraterrestrial rhinocerous? You made a grandiose claim at one point but subsequently you refused to back it up. Remember?

I'm waiting for you to demonstrate how you know you're not being controlled by Satan so I can follow the same pattern of proof. Remember?

Now, I would be happy to address your question. Er...what is it? You wanted to know how I would assess the veracity of a claimed "miracle", eh? Well, of course I would subject it to scientific scrutiny.

You already display a lack of understanding. Science might verify the phenomenal aspects of an event, but cannot determine the supernatural means. Science says an object falls because of the "law" of gravity. But, science can't observe the law of gravity or any other "law" of physics. The "law" of gravity is merely an observation of how dropped objects behave.
If someone comes back to life after 3 days, science can verify the physical phenomenon, but cannot assess the meaning of such an event.

If it were claimed that remote, secret prayer could cure cancer or heart disease, I would subject it to rigorous epidemiological study.

Which you know to be valid for such matters, how exactly?

In fact, such studies have been done, with no dramatic results. (Claims of rather pathetically modest effects have been skewered by various critics.) If it were claimed that prayer could suspend the laws of gravity, I could easily devise a test.[/qb[

Same comment.

[qb]Claims of ancient miracles, such as Jesus' alleged resurrection, miracles attributed to Asclepius, etc. are more difficult to assess, since they are not ongoing affairs. It is, of course, rather convenient for believers of various stripes that these alleged miracles occurred at a time when meticulous, quasi-permanent documentation was not available.

Question begging. We have the Gospels and other eyewittness accounts. You assume they are not reliable simply because of the message they contain which you have pre-judged to be false.

But fear not! Were Jesus to return (I am always hearing that the blessed event is imminent!) and he were examined by competent researchers (say a panel of the NAS) and found able to walk on water, raise the dead, etc., I would very likely be forced to reassess my beliefs.

Actually, you wouldn't. You would simply assert, as non-believers do, that there must be some undiscovered physical principle behind these events or that they are just physical anomolies. As I showed earlier, the mere verification of an event cannot assign significance - that requires revelation.

In addition, as many have noted, even singular events from the past leave a material record. Thus, had the radiometric dating of the Shroud of Turin revealed a first century date, that would have been a supportive datum. However, as is well-known, three competent radiometric dating teams have established that the shroud is of medieval provenance (1260 CE - 1390 CE, with 95% confidence, according to one study).

How nice for you. Since the shroud is not revelation, what's the point?

Apikorus · 01-10-2002, 01:52 PM

Theophilus, how do you know that the Bible interprets itself as the "word of God"?

The very fact that different religions cannot even agree on the biblical canon demonstrates that interpretation is very much part of the game. Can you please answer my question: On what basis can it be claimed that the Book of Ezra is "scripture" while Enoch and the Temple Scroll from Qumran are not?

In addition, there are variations among all ancient biblical manuscripts: no two agree entirely (though they may in isolated passages). The reason, theophilus, is that the biblical texts clearly were produced by humans - they were written by scribes, and scribes are fallible, as the ancient manuscripts abundantly attest.

Evangelical Christians often absurdly claim that the "originals" were perfect. Where are these "originals"? Indeed many scholars believe that there never were "originals" of several biblical books. When beaten on this point, the evangelical generally retreats to another position, namely that the bible is completely accurate on all the "important doctrinal matters". But this is a slippery slope indeed! Once a single error in the "divine writ" is admitted, the entire text is to a degree poisoned with doubt. For example, virtually all ancient manuscripts contain scribal errors ("haplography"). From the Qumran scroll 4QSam^b we know that the entire opening paragraph of 1 Sam 11 had been mistakenly dropped from the text - an omission which was present in all editions of 1 Samuel until only recently. Can you conclusively prove that a key sentence or paragraph was not dropped from the New Testament? Perhaps Jesus said "there will be yet a greater one after me". Can you prove he never said such a thing?

Finally, recipes are most definitely interpreted. What exactly do "stir vigorously", "bake until golden brown", or "salt to taste" mean?

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

Apikorus · 01-10-2002, 01:55 PM

Theophilus, now you are dodging two questions. I will remind you that I have never claimed that I am not controlled by Satan. I do not issue proofs for statements I have never avowed.

On the other hand, you did make a positive and emphatic claim that you could prove that your thoughts were not controlled by an extraterrestrial agent. Please show us your proof! I'm sorry but I can't give you anything to copy from!

Regarding the "testimony" of the gospels and its alleged veracity, I need not remind you that we have mountains of other ancient "testimony" to the miracles wrought by other gods. Strangely, you discount that testimony. On what basis?

While you did not approve of my response, I did make an honest effort to answer your question. Will you please extend me the same courtesy? Could you answer the following:

1) How can you be sure that your thoughts are not controlled by an extraterrestrial agent (the big blue rhinocerous).

2) How do you know that the Book of Ezra is "scripture" while the Book of Enoch and the Temple Scroll from Qumran cave 11 are not?

If you continue to refuse to answer these questions, I think many of us reading will be forced to draw our own conclusions!

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

Anunnaki · 01-10-2002, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani:
Dear Anunnaki,
So you think my following syllogism is silly?:
1) Atheism is not thrilling.
2) Truth is thrilling.
3) Ergo, Atheism contains no truth.

Then why, pray tell, isn't the one it's derived from silly too?:
1) The greatest story ever told sounds suspiciously similar to a lot of also-rans.
2) The also-rans were myths.
3) Ergo the greatest story ever told is a myth.

Such double standards you guys have. It's enough to make me think you have no standards at all. Alas, it's not enough to make you think period. Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Oh Albert! Confuse and distort all you will,but you`re not fooling anyone but yourself.
The bottom line here is that no one ate any apple and angered your god,you can`t stuff all the animals on Earth on a boat,men don`t walk on water,men don`t float up in the sky,men don`t resurrect the dead with magic or get resurrected themselves and the human race is not a hideous creation that needs some kind of magical savior to save them from unending torment. It makes no difference how spooky the words are of the mythology you have chosen (or were taught) to believe.
Anyone who hasent had this nonsense pounded into their heads at an early age can clearly see these tall tales for what they are. Why some people choose to still debate this nonsense with you is beyond me,but it`s their decision to do it and it`s their patience that is wearing thin from going in circles with you.

Cheers!

David Gould · 01-10-2002, 04:10 PM

Theophilus,

Why is it that I need an 'authority'?

I can accept that everything I know may be wrong and yet still function quite happily. I do not claim that my reason is authoratitive or my senses or a book - I simply operate within what I think I sense and reason. As this has not lead to my ceasing to sense and reason or to suffer sensations which I do not want very often, I must conclude that I need no authority.

lpetrich · 01-10-2002, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani:
[QB]Dear Ipetrich, ... you should have no problem with the following (affirmation of the consequent) syllogism that's equally as fallacious:
1) Men look suspiciously similar to apes.
2) Apes are not men.
3) Ergo, men are not men.

All that proves is that similarity is not identity.

Mr. Cipriani, I wonder what is the fundamental difference between the story of King Herod being out to get the baby Jesus Christ, and similar stories of deities and leaders being out to get other baby heroes?

Albert Cipriani · 01-11-2002, 10:22 AM

Ipetrich,

Quote:

All that proves is that similarity is not identity.

Duh. So the fact that fictional theistic stories are similar to the Greatest Story Ever Told, does not mean that the Greatest Story Ever Told is identically fictional. – Albert the Traditional Catholic

theophilus · 01-11-2002, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:


All that proves is that similarity is not identity.

Mr. Cipriani, I wonder what is the fundamental difference between the story of King Herod being out to get the baby Jesus Christ, and similar stories of deities and leaders being out to get other baby heroes?

I have to confess that I am not familiar with the other stories or how "similar" they are. Did these other stories take place in real "space-time?"
Herod was not out to get Jesus as a deity. Rather, he was out to get a real, flesh and blood baby who was a threat to his throne.
There is the issue of supernatural powers at work and counterfeit stories. Satan evidently was well aware of the purpose of God to send Jesus into the world and was smart enough to understand the outlnes of the details that would accompany such an event, i.e., virgin birth, persecution, death and resurrection. Since Satan's purpose was to frustrate this plan, it is reasonable that he would try to discredit it by creating "similar" stories.
The ultimate question is, how can you, as an atheist, know that any of them are true or false? What foundation do you have for judging the truth or falsity of any supernatural event?

theophilus · 01-11-2002, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gould:
Theophilus,

Why is it that I need an 'authority'?

I can accept that everything I know may be wrong and yet still function quite happily. I do not claim that my reason is authoratitive or my senses or a book - I simply operate within what I think I sense and reason. As this has not lead to my ceasing to sense and reason or to suffer sensations which I do not want very often, I must conclude that I need no authority.

Well, if you want to challenge the conclusions someone else draws from their senses and reasons or if you want to make statements about the ultimate nature of things, i.e., there is/isn't a God, then you need some standard other than yourself.
Otherwise, such statements are just expressions of personal preference and this whole process is a worthless enterprise - don't you think?

theophilus · 01-11-2002, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunnaki:


Oh Albert! Confuse and distort all you will,but you`re not fooling anyone but yourself.
The bottom line here is that no one ate any apple and angered your god,you can`t stuff all the animals on Earth on a boat,men don`t walk on water,men don`t float up in the sky,men don`t resurrect the dead with magic or get resurrected themselves and the human race is not a hideous creation that needs some kind of magical savior to save them from unending torment. It makes no difference how spooky the words are of the mythology you have chosen (or were taught) to believe.

Care to offer any proof?

Anyone who hasent had this nonsense pounded into their heads at an early age can clearly see these tall tales for what they are.

This is regularly offered as an argument against belief. Aside from being logically falacious, it is just wrong. Ignoring all the people who have been converted as adults by missionaries, many of the great Christian apologists have been converted as adults, e.g., C.S. Lewis, Augustine.

Why some people choose to still debate this nonsense with you is beyond me,but it`s their decision to do it and it`s their patience that is wearing thin from going in circles with you.

Cheers!

Then why are you here?

01-10-2002, 01:52 PM	#102
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Theophilus, how do you know that the Bible interprets itself as the "word of God"? The very fact that different religions cannot even agree on the biblical canon demonstrates that interpretation is very much part of the game. Can you please answer my question: On what basis can it be claimed that the Book of Ezra is "scripture" while Enoch and the Temple Scroll from Qumran are not? In addition, there are variations among all ancient biblical manuscripts: no two agree entirely (though they may in isolated passages). The reason, theophilus, is that the biblical texts clearly were produced by humans - they were written by scribes, and scribes are fallible, as the ancient manuscripts abundantly attest. Evangelical Christians often absurdly claim that the "originals" were perfect. Where are these "originals"? Indeed many scholars believe that there never were "originals" of several biblical books. When beaten on this point, the evangelical generally retreats to another position, namely that the bible is completely accurate on all the "important doctrinal matters". But this is a slippery slope indeed! Once a single error in the "divine writ" is admitted, the entire text is to a degree poisoned with doubt. For example, virtually all ancient manuscripts contain scribal errors ("haplography"). From the Qumran scroll 4QSam^b we know that the entire opening paragraph of 1 Sam 11 had been mistakenly dropped from the text - an omission which was present in all editions of 1 Samuel until only recently. Can you conclusively prove that a key sentence or paragraph was not dropped from the New Testament? Perhaps Jesus said "there will be yet a greater one after me". Can you prove he never said such a thing? Finally, recipes are most definitely interpreted. What exactly do "stir vigorously", "bake until golden brown", or "salt to taste" mean? [ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

01-10-2002, 01:55 PM	#103
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Theophilus, now you are dodging two questions. I will remind you that I have never claimed that I am not controlled by Satan. I do not issue proofs for statements I have never avowed. On the other hand, you did make a positive and emphatic claim that you could prove that your thoughts were not controlled by an extraterrestrial agent. Please show us your proof! I'm sorry but I can't give you anything to copy from! Regarding the "testimony" of the gospels and its alleged veracity, I need not remind you that we have mountains of other ancient "testimony" to the miracles wrought by other gods. Strangely, you discount that testimony. On what basis? While you did not approve of my response, I did make an honest effort to answer your question. Will you please extend me the same courtesy? Could you answer the following: 1) How can you be sure that your thoughts are not controlled by an extraterrestrial agent (the big blue rhinocerous). 2) How do you know that the Book of Ezra is "scripture" while the Book of Enoch and the Temple Scroll from Qumran cave 11 are not? If you continue to refuse to answer these questions, I think many of us reading will be forced to draw our own conclusions! [ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

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

01-10-2002, 04:10 PM	#105
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	Theophilus, Why is it that I need an 'authority'? I can accept that everything I know may be wrong and yet still function quite happily. I do not claim that my reason is authoratitive or my senses or a book - I simply operate within what I think I sense and reason. As this has not lead to my ceasing to sense and reason or to suffer sensations which I do not want very often, I must conclude that I need no authority.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.