Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Apikorus · 01-16-2002, 05:09 PM

Sorry, I wrote James when I should have said Jude of course.

FarSeeker · 01-16-2002, 05:09 PM

[Dr. Retard

Quote:

"From nothing, nothing comes" or "ex nihilo, nihil fit" is a slogan that goes back to Xenophanes, an Eleatic philosopher whose theology is hardly atheist, but perhaps best described as pantheist. …

Sorry, I didn’t know it went that far back. But it is irrelevant since Atheists have used it as an argument against creation ex nihilo. If they’re wrong, that’s a strike against them, not me.

Quote:

First, atheism is rarely based on that fallacy. Positive atheism, the kind where the atheists are persuaded that God doesn't exist, usually stems from arguments for God's nonexistence (like the argument from evil or the arguments from incoherence). Negative atheism, the kind where the atheists merely lack theistic belief, usually stems from absence of evidence for God's existence; of course, absence of evidence is fine grounds for absence of belief.

The argument from evil contradicts itself starting at its very title – assuming a conclusion for which it has not proven: that there is Good and Evil. If you want to start from the same assumptions, the existence of Good (and it’s difference from evil) argues for God’s existence.

As for the argument from incoherence (as I have read it), that argument contradicts itself as well. Therefore I see no valid evidence for the conclusion of Atheism.

As you would call people who “merely lack belief” in evolution ignorant, those “merely lack theistic belief” are also ignorant. Before anyone gets on his or her high horse, please note the difference between ignorant and stupid.

Quote:

Second, what is the point of bringing up Marxist atheists? The original point was that atheism is not exclusivist like Christianity. Bringing up another group of atheists only bolsters the point. Hell, bring up pagan atheists and Republican atheists while you're at it.

Third, what is the point of bringing up Peter Singer? I don't get this at all. And, you ask, who says Marxists are more right than Peter Singer? Beats me, maybe stupid people say that. Why does it matter?

Not exclusivist? How about Christians Atheist? The acts of Marxists and the teachings of Prof. Singer cannot be proven to be wrong under Atheism. You can dislike their morals, be against their morals, wish to outlaw their morals …
(Why? Isn’t that just you forcing your morals on others? Something Atheists scream bloody murder about when Christians try to do it? <Devils Advocate Mode: ON> Singer isn’t trying to force you to kill your child; he just wants people who find their child to be imperfect in some way to be able to kill it within… oh, say 28 days of birth -- but that’s just an arbitrary period. Besides, those things weren’t babies a few seconds before, while their cranium was still in the birth canal, why the instant they leave it? <Devils Advocate Mode: OFF&gt
Infanticide happens in primate “societies” in nature, so it must be natural. The Spartans are said to have done it. I have heard the Romans could do it legally until their child became an adult. Stalin isn’t saying you have to kill anyone; he just wants to kill those he sees as a threat to himself. What is wrong with that? And to force your morals on others means that there would have to be a set of morals that is universal, which you deny, or you just like being a dictator.

Atheism’s problem is its non-exclusivism. It has no foundation that is not arbitrary!

[quote]And lastly, I must address this: [QUOTE]

Quote:

Ernest Sparks wrote:
Last night our Public Broadcasting System affiliate showed "Crucible of the Millennium". I got a kick out of the statement there that Admiral de Gama's crew went to the main temple in Kalikut, knelt before the picture of the goddess and prayed, because they believed she was the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Quote:

Farseeker responded:
So? Lots of Atheists praised Marx and his teachings because they thought he would free the world from the evils of religion.

Quote:

Now come on, can you not spot the comedic difference between the two? In one, people of one faith gave reverence to a icon of another faith due to the mistaken belief that it was of their own. In the other, people with some theological position praise a philosopher-economist due to the mistaken belief that his influence will further their goals. There's no comedy in the second one.

First, I question the reliability of the source. PBS has been unfairly biased against Christianity in several of its programs. It has even gone so far as to rewrite history.
Second, people make mistakes; that’s the deal. Considering Atheists’ opinions of Christians, I am surprised that you were not surprised that de Gama’s men didn’t trash the place because it didn’t look like the Churches at home. That is the type of people Atheists think Christians are. This all shows that you’re being unfairly selective your criticism.

Quote:

Here's an equally unfunny, but true, story:
Lots of Christians praised Marx and his teachings because they thought that his influence would liberate the poor from their [poverty].

Which just goes to show that some Christians hoped for the best, but were disappointed by Atheists. That may have been news then, but it’s old hat by now. Just look at Atheists’ attempts to circumvent the Bill of Rights recently.

Considering the lies Bertrand Russell told Atheists, sounds like the Atheists got the better deal.

Apikorus · 01-16-2002, 05:13 PM

There are lots of errors in the Bible that the scribes did not correct. Indeed, there are many errors which scribes unwittingly initiated!

It is easy to be fooled by rabbits, since they often appear to be masticating even when they're not eating. Evidently the P author of Leviticus was fooled.

lpetrich · 01-16-2002, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Theo on Jacob's sheep:
Why 2800 years? Why no immediately? Even rabid evolutionists admit that these people were at least as smart as we are. These people were shepherds, they knew how sheep bred and they knew how to breed to get the characteristics they wanted, i.e., size, color, and they knew this couldn't be accomplished in the normal scheme of things by putting colored sprouts in the feed trough.

I wonder what leads Theo to that conclusion, because this genetic-engineering story is an example of a common pre-Mendelian belief: maternal impressions.

Quote:

Theo:
The Bible is about Redemption and must be read in that context. The point is, these were supernatural events. Of course they defy the normal state of affairs.

Quote:

Theo on cud-chewing rabbits:
Again, these people were not stupid. They knew whether or not rabbits chewed the cud. How stupid would somebody have to be to include an obvious error like that. How stupid would the scribes have to be not to correct the error when it was discovered?

However, Theo has no direct evidence in favor of his contention.

Quote:

Theo:
The doctrine of inerrancy only holds to the original documents.

What a stupid being the Biblical God must be, letting people miscopy and rewrite His Documents.

Quote:

Apikorus: no qualified astronomer would claim that the Sun and the Moon are the same age, or that the Sun is younger than the Earth.
Theo:
No qualified astronomer or physicist who does not assume a naturalistic explanation for everything "from the outset" of his thinking.

That the Sun is older than the Earth, and that the Earth is older than the Moon, both by several million years, are derived independently of such supposed presuppositions. If they had been miraculously created all at once, for example, then they had been carefully created in a fashion that makes them look as if they have the above-stated age sequence. Which is Philip Gosse territory.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

Apikorus · 01-16-2002, 09:50 PM

Theophilus has not proven, nor can he prove, that there ever were "original documents". As I explained, it seems quite plausible that the earliest written traditions were pluriform.

theophilus · 01-17-2002, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
Theophilus has not proven, nor can he prove, that there ever were "original documents". As I explained, it seems quite plausible that the earliest written traditions were pluriform.

This is trivial statement. If there were not "original" documents, there could be no "subsequent" documents.
There could be no "copies" of the Declaration of Independence if there was no "original" document.

It is equally "plausible" that they were not pluriform. The mere assertion of a hypothesis has not probative value.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]

Apikorus · 01-17-2002, 12:45 PM

Theophilus is quite confused, again. Oral traditions are virtually always pluriform. When stories are rendered in writing, then often there are multiple versions. Was it David or Elhanan who slew Goliath? (Most evangelical responses to this question depart from an absurdity, such as there being two Goliaths, or David being identified with Elhanan, or some other equally untenable fantasy.)

Authors also often revise and correct their work in essential ways. The Septuagint of Jeremiah, Daniel, Samuel, and even Exodus differs significantly from the Masoretic Text, and in profound ways which cannot be explained by simple accretions of scribal errors (e.g. the LXX of Jeremiah is about 13% shorter than the Masoretic Jeremiah). Furthermore, several more or less distinct textual traditions are represented at Qumran: Masoretic, Septuagint, and (in the case of the Pentateuch) Samaritan. Thus, the earliest biblical fragments themselves attest to the pluriformity of the biblical text. It is theophilus who is clinging to a naked hypothesis, with zero proof. My contention is supported by the material record itself.

Theophilus remains utterly unable to establish his claim that there were originals, and that they were inerrant.

He also has failed to address the issue of the variation among biblical canons.

No doubt, his understanding of the Bible is rooted in what others have told him: parents, friends, clergymen, commentators, and even the translators themselves, since he is illiterate in biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. In short, his entire understanding of the Bible is filtered through and indeed influenced by several strata of individuals. Thus, his claims of direct and perfect knowledge of God's word are manifestly preposterous.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

daemon · 01-17-2002, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:
This is trivial statement. If there were not "original" documents, there could be no "subsequent" documents.
There could be no "copies" of the Declaration of Independence if there was no "original" document.

I'd like to interject here--this is wrong. If I tell a story to persons A, B, and C, and all three write it down, which is the original document of my story, especially if I told it a bit differently to all three? Note that this is a much simplified version of how it's thought most of these stories were written down!

(Ah well, I crossposted with Apikorous, and he said it much better than I anyway, as usual.

)

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: daemon23 ]

theophilus · 01-17-2002, 03:42 PM

I know it's a little late in the game, but I'd like to point out the essentially perjorative nature of the title of this thread, "Christians cannot even convert hindus."

The implication is clearly that this demonstrates a defect in Christianity. Why? Are hindus notoriously susceptibel to conversion by other religions? Is there something special about Christian doctrine that should be attractive to Hundus (apparently not)? Is there something about Christians themselves which should equip them to convert Hindus?

A title like, "Why Hindus are not easily converted to Christianity," might have been meaningful. As it is, this is just Christian bashing.
Besides, it's not even true. Some Hindus have been converted to Christianity.

theophilus · 01-17-2002, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
Theophilus is quite confused, again. Oral traditions are virtually always pluriform.

Just how many "oral traditions" have you personally examined to confirm the truth of this statement. And you know that the Biblical documents were originally "oral," how?

When stories are rendered in writing, then often there are multiple versions.

The logic of this argument bears examination:
A. Oral stories are often rendered in multiple versions when reduced to writing.
B. The Bible was (arguably) an oral story reduced to writing.
C. Therefore, the Bible was rendered in multiple versions.
Isn't this called a non sequiter?

Was it David or Elhanan who slew Goliath?
It was both. These are obviously accounts of two separate battles that occurred at two separate times and places. In one, Saul was king; in the second, David was King. The name Goliath may have been a family name and it is not unreasonable to expect that brothers or other close relatives would have similar physical characteristics.
Next.

(Most evangelical responses to this question depart from an absurdity, such as there being two Goliaths, or David being identified with Elhanan, or some other equally untenable fantasy.)

More bad logic, i.e., "therefore, all evangelicals will have equally weak responses."

Authors also often revise and correct their work in essential ways.

Let's see: (some) authors; often revise; therefore, this applies to the Bible texts.
Next.

The Septuagint of Jeremiah, Daniel, Samuel, and even Exodus differs significantly from the Masoretic Text, and in profound ways which cannot be explained by simple accretions of scribal errors (e.g. the LXX of Jeremiah is about 13% shorter than the Masoretic Jeremiah).

And you know this just because of the existence of earlier texts. The LXX is known to be a late translation of earlier Hebrew texts, not variant versions of the same period.

Furthermore, several more or less distinct textual traditions are represented at Qumran: Masoretic, Septuagint, and (in the case of the Pentateuch) Samaritan. Thus, the earliest biblical fragments themselves attest to the pluriformity of the biblical text.

Another false argument. There are versions of the Declaration of Independence that use the word "inalienable" and others that (correctly) use the word "unalienable." Does this attest to the "pluriformity of the" Declaration?

It is theophilus who is clinging to a naked hypothesis, with zero proof. My contention is supported by the material record itself.

Your contention is supported by nothing more than your biased, logically fallacious interpretation of data motivated by your need to justify your unbelief. So there!

Theophilus remains utterly unable to establish his claim that there were originals, and that they were inerrant.

My claim is as reasonable as yours to the contrary and the claim for inerrancy is only meaningful as a statement of faith. Empirically, it is certainly not in jeopardy from arguments like who killed Goliath.

He also has failed to address the issue of the variation among biblical canons.

This is simply false. I did address it. Perhaps not to your liking, but I'm not aware that your judgement has been established as the infallible standard of truth. Certainly not of what constitutes a valid argument.

No doubt, his understanding of the Bible is rooted in what others have told him: parents, friends, clergymen, commentators, and even the translators themselves, since he is illiterate in biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek.

I can only assume from this that you are well versed in both.
More important, is there anything that you believe that you have not personally confirmed to be true?
Fundamentally, this is an ad homenim argument, a non-sequiter and a kind of "appeal to authority" in reverse,i.e., Theophilus' beliefs are based on what other people have told him and, therefore, cannot be true.

In short, his entire understanding of the Bible is filtered through and indeed influenced by several strata of individuals. Thus, his claims of direct and perfect knowledge of God's word are manifestly preposterous.

My claims to personal knowledge of God's word are based on the Bible itself. Once more, this is a non sequiter, "his understanding has been filtered through several strata of individuals and is, therefore, manifestly preposterous (I especially like the "manifestly" part - although, if it is manifest, why was it necessary to point it out). Let's see, "Apikorus' knowledge of Koine Greek has been filtered through several strata of individuals (assuming he did not learn it directly from Aristotle), and is, therefore, MANIFESTLY preposterous (please don't bother me with whether or not Aristotle spoke Koine).
I never claimed textual or linguistic knowledge as the basis for such, nor did I claim to have perfect understanding. There is sufficient material here to discuss; try to avoid making things up.

BTW, it is interesting that you did not address me personally in this message. I wonder what the psychological implications of that would be.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ][/QB]

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]

01-17-2002, 12:45 PM	#147
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Theophilus is quite confused, again. Oral traditions are virtually always pluriform. When stories are rendered in writing, then often there are multiple versions. Was it David or Elhanan who slew Goliath? (Most evangelical responses to this question depart from an absurdity, such as there being two Goliaths, or David being identified with Elhanan, or some other equally untenable fantasy.) Authors also often revise and correct their work in essential ways. The Septuagint of Jeremiah, Daniel, Samuel, and even Exodus differs significantly from the Masoretic Text, and in profound ways which cannot be explained by simple accretions of scribal errors (e.g. the LXX of Jeremiah is about 13% shorter than the Masoretic Jeremiah). Furthermore, several more or less distinct textual traditions are represented at Qumran: Masoretic, Septuagint, and (in the case of the Pentateuch) Samaritan. Thus, the earliest biblical fragments themselves attest to the pluriformity of the biblical text. It is theophilus who is clinging to a naked hypothesis, with zero proof. My contention is supported by the material record itself. Theophilus remains utterly unable to establish his claim that there were originals, and that they were inerrant. He also has failed to address the issue of the variation among biblical canons. No doubt, his understanding of the Bible is rooted in what others have told him: parents, friends, clergymen, commentators, and even the translators themselves, since he is illiterate in biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. In short, his entire understanding of the Bible is filtered through and indeed influenced by several strata of individuals. Thus, his claims of direct and perfect knowledge of God's word are manifestly preposterous. [ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

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

01-16-2002, 05:09 PM	#141
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Sorry, I wrote James when I should have said Jude of course.

01-16-2002, 05:13 PM	#143
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	There are lots of errors in the Bible that the scribes did not correct. Indeed, there are many errors which scribes unwittingly initiated! It is easy to be fooled by rabbits, since they often appear to be masticating even when they're not eating. Evidently the P author of Leviticus was fooled.

01-16-2002, 09:50 PM	#145
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Theophilus has not proven, nor can he prove, that there ever were "original documents". As I explained, it seems quite plausible that the earliest written traditions were pluriform.

01-17-2002, 03:42 PM	#149
theophilus Banned Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Southern California Posts: 2,945	I know it's a little late in the game, but I'd like to point out the essentially perjorative nature of the title of this thread, "Christians cannot even convert hindus." The implication is clearly that this demonstrates a defect in Christianity. Why? Are hindus notoriously susceptibel to conversion by other religions? Is there something special about Christian doctrine that should be attractive to Hundus (apparently not)? Is there something about Christians themselves which should equip them to convert Hindus? A title like, "Why Hindus are not easily converted to Christianity," might have been meaningful. As it is, this is just Christian bashing. Besides, it's not even true. Some Hindus have been converted to Christianity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.