Where does it say, aside from Exodus 33:20 that god himself said any such thing? Find me the verse. You, yourself, have put the authenticity of the things said in Exodus 33 as subject to author error, so we can toss that out. And even if we didn't do that, you said

caposkia wrote:

God stated in many other parts that no one can see his face and survive

I wouldn't say that one time is *many other parts*. So if it has to be a "god said" verse for you to believe it that literally, then it's quite a problem when it says that someone did just that in the exact same chapter. You may wonder why I am not accepting your assertion that it doesn't mean that he saw god. The reason is that I do not accept your assertion that people averted their eyes is because I don't believe it says that ANYWHERE, and the entire concept of the ability for people to see god in the bible is inconsistent, no matter how many times you say that it isn't. 

Well, first of all, I brought up 2 statements during this thread (the one we've been discussing, and one in genesis regarding Jacob stating that he indeed did see the face of god and live, Gen 32:30). 

The main problem here is that you're saying that if you're wrong, then you're imperfect and may have misunderstood scripture. You have completely precluded the possibility that the inconsistencies are errors in scripture, rather than in your understanding. You have a priori eliminated any possibility that the bible is not a book containing facts (or truth, which ARE the same thing, something which Christians also try to deny). 

Now later, I cite a 3rd verse that makes this problem even worse. Let's see what happens!

Hah! So all your points are reasons why things may be translated wrong, or written down incorrectly (for example, if I heard of an event that happened where I was sitting this moment that occurred in an aboriginal tribe 600 years ago involving the chief of the tribe, it would be inaccurate to say that it happened in Calgary and involved Chief Mayor Naheed Nenshi. That would just be inaccurate. If you can demonstrate to me that outside of the bible, people wrote history this way in that time and place, I will concede the argument. But you seem to have invented this standard yourself (or got it from some other equally deluded person and parroted it). I have NEVER heard of such a standard of writing, and simply will not accept this argument (your argument #3) until you show me that it was standard fare back then. #1 and #2 are just more lame attempts at trying to explain away inconsistencies (which don't actually make them go away, FYI). 

You clearly aren't educated enough to draw that conclusion. 

Also, funny you bring up Einstein. First of all, he was probably more of a pantheist. Can you find him professing a creator for the Universe? Until then, don't tell me that he believed in a creating god. Furthermore, Einstein died before the evidence for the big bang was what it is today. He even thought that some of his work was inaccurate, but was actually proved accurate when we discovered that the Universe was indeed expanding. 

Also, why bring up Einstein in the first place? I just finished telling you that people whose knowledge of biology dwarfs what mine ever will be are wrong on this topic. There are incredibly smart people who believe in a god, and incredibly smart people who don't. Clearly, the two things don't have to be connected (although statistically, higher education does correlate with lower religiosity). 

What I want from you here, is what I asserted that no Christian will ever do; explain how one properly determines what degree of truth lies in each part of the bible, and how we go about determining that. If you can do that concisely, you'll be the first person I've ever seen even attempt it.

caposkia wrote:

pick a part.. a specific part.

I'm not asking you to do this verse by verse. I'm asking you to explain a METHOD one can use to determine these things. 

Hah...despite my beliefs. 

Now your bolded part...I cited a verse in the very post you quoted there! Judges 13:22. Above in this post, I also cited Genesis 32:30. Those 2 verses are more specific on that. The reason I cited Exodus 33 is that it seems to imply that the inability to see god's face was a NEW development. Regardless, the verses in Genesis and Judges do explicitly contradict it. So what's your explanation for those? 

caposkia wrote:

...pray about your comprehension of what is read.... and you should be good to go.

Jabberwocky wrote:

What I want from you here, is what I asserted that no Christian will ever do; explain how one properly determines what degree of truth lies in each part of the bible, and how we go about determining that. If you can do that concisely, you'll be the first person I've ever seen even attempt it.

... Pray about my comprehension? To do either of those things I would have to believe in god to begin with....

Why would it be common sense? If someone can make a mistake writing the thing, for what reason do they suddenly become infallible when quoting god? They can be just as mistaken when allegedly quoting god. 

I will, below. How is what I'm doing trolling in any way, shape, or form?

It was Jacob not Abram being referred to. 

Yes, I agree regarding the context in Gen. 16:13, because it quite clearly says "The angel of the lord". This is why I didn't bring that one up. 

You seem to imply that the verses that say that god was seen actually don't mean that he was seen, but people had an "audience" with god, without being allowed to look at him. However, the language was concise enough to be able to convey that. Indeed during the destruction of Sodom, Lot was instructed not to look into the destruction (and upon his wife doing just that, she was transformed into a pillar of salt, which is a completely sensible and not fucking random thing whatsoever). The point is, all references to god not being able to be seen EVER (with 0 exceptions) occur in the new testament. Exodus 33:20 clearly implies that god can no longer be seen. Judges 13:22 implies that someone did see god, but another exception was made. If you're not going to agree that this is what it says, then we're done. You simply refuse to admit that your book contains internal inconsistencies. I'm ok with that. Luckily, you're absolutely insane enough that you'll convince nobody else but the equally insane that your position is coherent in any way shape or form. Not much else needs to be said. 

I'm not going to bother to read that whole effing thing. We both have commented on how long these posts take to read, and reply to. So if you've done the research, perhaps quote the relevant part. I did search some keywords though, and was unable to find what I was looking for. 

Furthermore, even if it said any such thing, then all you have done was show that this was standard fare for the book of the dead, not the bible.

On the first one, I said professing, not merely suggesting. He used words like "god" and "religion" to mean very different things than you do. This may seem like a cop-out, but it's hardly one if you actually read all of Einstein's commentary on the topic, not just the verses that, in a vacuum, support your personal belief. Just like with the issue of god's ability to be seen, you are quote mining. You are personally deciding which words spoken, or written, by a certain person, or in a certain book, are the ones that are true, and merely dismissing the rest. I can easily find an Einstein quote that says the following:

AlbertEinstein!! wrote:

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church... As long as I can remember. I have resented mass indoctrination. I cannot prove to you there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws"

Immutable laws...I think that says it all. Einstein was indeed a complex man. However, I'm not quite done yet. 

Read the second one in context:

Quote:

“Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.  But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

He is basically saying that science is the method by which we determine truth, whereas religion is the impulse by which we are driven to seek it. There is virtually no other way to interpret this. That is why science without religion is lame; there is no reason to do science without a quest for truth. The reason that religion without science is blind, is because it is a search for truth without a proper method to determine it. That's how you come to incorrect conclusions. As you clearly have. I agree with his sentiment, but for me, the word religion is typically not used in nearly as poetic or dignified way as Einstein uses it in this excerpt. It is very clear in this quote what Einstein means, and it's not what you wish he meant. Also, can YOU re-read my post above An argument from authority is not an argument at all. You are absolutely pathetic that you feel better because you think Einstein agrees with you. Whatever helps you sleep at night. 

I used up to 48 different ones at times in these discussions. I've put in my homework here, trust me. The "Author"? With a capital A? Pray about my comprehension? To do either of those things I would have to believe in god to begin with. I've already tried that method earlier in life. Didn't work. You are quite literally saying that the way to understand what parts of the bible are true, and what parts aren't, and why it's ok that many parts aren't, you simply have to believe. So, in short, put your fingers in your ears and sing "LALALALALALAGODLALA" until your brain begins effectively blocking any attempt at reasonable discourse that can possibly shake your belief in god almighty! I, unfortunately for you, do not have the ability to deliberately contradict my mental faculties in that way, and short of a form of dementia or a brain injury, I never will. 

I asked you for a method. You basically just told me to take your word for it (by method of believing in god in advance, which then will convince you "Hey! These obvious contradictions CAN work together!". I'm not one who thinks that every religious person is insane. I think many are really stupid (young earth creationists) and sometimes it's not their fault. I think that the more intelligent ones have emotional reasons to believe, and typically won't go so far as to discuss it in depth, because even they know deep down that there's some level of bullshit to it, but they want to remain in their state of wishful thinking. I don't recommend that, but to each their own. You are actually insane it seems. This is a level of cognitive dissonance I didn't think was possible at all. Congratulations. 

Where in judges does it fucking say that?? What about that chapter implies that it was an angel?

zarathustra wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

...pray about your comprehension of what is read.... and you should be good to go.

Jabberwocky wrote:

What I want from you here, is what I asserted that no Christian will ever do; explain how one properly determines what degree of truth lies in each part of the bible, and how we go about determining that. If you can do that concisely, you'll be the first person I've ever seen even attempt it.

... Pray about my comprehension? To do either of those things I would have to believe in god to begin with....

Reminds me of a conversation I had with Mormon missionaries once.  I asked them about the court documents confirming that Joseph Smith was a convicted fraud.  One of them responded, "When I hear things like that,  I just pray..."

"Pray" = Assume your conclusion, then ruminate until you come up with something that supports it.

Yep, basically. Ken Ham said it nicely in his debate with Bill Nye.

We have the same observational science: I reject the distinction between types of science, but I know what he's trying to imply, so for the sake of argument, I'll accept his terms. He's MOSTLY correct, but not completely. I'll discuss why shortly. 

We have different historical science: True.

We have different historical science due to a difference in starting point: True

The creationist starting point is the bible and god: True

The evolutionist (real terms include "rationalist" "secular human" "not a fucking moron" "methodological naturalist" "any naturalist"...) starting point is millions of years and evolution:...NO! Our starting point is now. It can't be anything BUT now. The reason that there is no difference between "observational science" and historical science, is because we observe what's in the present to deduce what's in the past, rather than observing what's in the present to attempt to explain what we already proclaimed happened in the past. 

 

It's what religious people MUST do, because there is no way to observe the present, and deduce religion from it. It's impossible in every way. When I was new at listening to the arguments (about the time I signed up to this forum), I wasn't swayed by the arguments of someone like William Lane Craig, but I would be lying if I said that it didn't seem like he won every debate he ever entered. The reason is that he is good at debating. He is good at covertly and convincingly spouting good logical fallacies. Once I realized what they were and realized he was actually quite full of shit, well it helped a lot. He likes to discuss physics a lot, but when he goes up against a physicist, he invariably gets thrashed. Furthermore, his debate with Hitchens, while I felt he did well for someone less versed in such a debate overall, to even a newcomer to that arena, he got slaughtered in the question period. 

One thing I did to train my mind early on was to listen to the Christopher Vs. Peter Hitchens debate. Then, listen to it again, but write down what Peter actually said word for word, and read it a few months later (without the trademark Hitchens voice and accent to sway my mind into thinking it was convincing by virtue of HOW it was said). It's amazing how someone can speak such nonsense, but still sound right because of the choice and words, and their delivery. It helped train me to listen to the content over the presentation. Having been raised in a church family (and living in a city with quite a charismatic bishop for the last 17 years), it certainly is something everyone should learn I feel. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Why would it be common sense? If someone can make a mistake writing the thing, for what reason do they suddenly become infallible when quoting god? They can be just as mistaken when allegedly quoting god. 

just like writing today, you can't "legally anyway" falsely quote someone or change the wording when quoting someone.... back then the same rules applied... they would either say this person said something like... or named person said... quote...  Common rules of writing here.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I will, below. How is what I'm doing trolling in any way, shape, or form?

you ignore the conversation and cry bullshit whenever you have nothing to say.  IN other words, instead of trying to resolve the conversation on either end, you try to keep it circular.

Jabberwocky wrote:

It was Jacob not Abram being referred to. 

sorry for misquoting

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, I agree regarding the context in Gen. 16:13, because it quite clearly says "The angel of the lord". This is why I didn't bring that one up. 

yet it says the exact same thing... so why would the other passage be different?  is it only because it didn't mention an angel there or specific form?

Jabberwocky wrote:

You seem to imply that the verses that say that god was seen actually don't mean that he was seen, but people had an "audience" with god, without being allowed to look at him. However, the language was concise enough to be able to convey that. Indeed during the destruction of Sodom, Lot was instructed not to look into the destruction (and upon his wife doing just that, she was transformed into a pillar of salt, which is a completely sensible and not fucking random thing whatsoever). The point is, all references to god not being able to be seen EVER (with 0 exceptions) occur in the new testament. Exodus 33:20 clearly implies that god can no longer be seen. Judges 13:22 implies that someone did see god, but another exception was made. If you're not going to agree that this is what it says, then we're done. You simply refuse to admit that your book contains internal inconsistencies. I'm ok with that. Luckily, you're absolutely insane enough that you'll convince nobody else but the equally insane that your position is coherent in any way shape or form. Not much else needs to be said. 

The NT was written by people who understood the rules of the OT...  why would that perception all of a sudden change?

Ex. 33:20 does not say or imply contextually anywhere (unless you can explain your reasoning) that it "no longer happens"... rather it specifically says "no man can see me and live"  It is a present participle inidicating a timeless statement...  Just like the "I AM" is the same participle in Hebrew... I AM means He was always and will always be the same God and is eternal.  We don't have such tense in English, so it's hard to explain to those who don't know the languages.  

all in all, per your statement that If i'm not going to agree, we're done, I guess we're done.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm not going to bother to read that whole effing thing. We both have commented on how long these posts take to read, and reply to. So if you've done the research, perhaps quote the relevant part. I did search some keywords though, and was unable to find what I was looking for. 

Furthermore, even if it said any such thing, then all you have done was show that this was standard fare for the book of the dead, not the bible.

so in other words, don't waste my time trying to find something specific for you because it won't matter anyway despite the point that you made in the prior post that you simply wanted proof outside the Bible that this occurs........ got it.

Jabberwocky wrote:

On the first one, I said professing, not merely suggesting. He used words like "god" and "religion" to mean very different things than you do. This may seem like a cop-out, but it's hardly one if you actually read all of Einstein's commentary on the topic, not just the verses that, in a vacuum, support your personal belief. Just like with the issue of god's ability to be seen, you are quote mining. You are personally deciding which words spoken, or written, by a certain person, or in a certain book, are the ones that are true, and merely dismissing the rest. I can easily find an Einstein quote that says the following:

AlbertEinstein!! wrote:

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church... As long as I can remember. I have resented mass indoctrination. I cannot prove to you there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws"

Immutable laws...I think that says it all. Einstein was indeed a complex man. However, I'm not quite done yet. 

Read the second one in context:

Quote:

“Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.  But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

He is basically saying that science is the method by which we determine truth, whereas religion is the impulse by which we are driven to seek it. There is virtually no other way to interpret this. That is why science without religion is lame; there is no reason to do science without a quest for truth. The reason that religion without science is blind, is because it is a search for truth without a proper method to determine it. That's how you come to incorrect conclusions. As you clearly have. I agree with his sentiment, but for me, the word religion is typically not used in nearly as poetic or dignified way as Einstein uses it in this excerpt. It is very clear in this quote what Einstein means, and it's not what you wish he meant. Also, can YOU re-read my post above An argument from authority is not an argument at all. You are absolutely pathetic that you feel better because you think Einstein agrees with you. Whatever helps you sleep at night. 

it's exactly what I hoped he meant... I know Einstein doesn't buy into the "personal God" of the Churches idea... I thought that was kind of a given from what I had said earlier, sorry I wasn't as clear on that... my point is that Einstein can't see a universe without a creator behind it... it has nothing to do with religion... which despite your beliefs about me are more congruent with my perspective of religion and is a point that the universe has more to it than science by itself can comprehend... at least at this point in time.  

Going to the first quote, did you notice it was church focused and not God focused?  it simply stated he didn't accept the "PErsonal" god, not that a god couldn't exist or that he even believed so. 

A direct quote from Einstein professing what HE does believe:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Spinoza's God though much more in depth than a single statement buys into the idea that thought is a substance in the universe that contributed to the construction of the universe.   It is understood to have a thought process as to which only a living being can have, but so big that it doesn't concern itself with the matters of humanity.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I used up to 48 different ones at times in these discussions. I've put in my homework here, trust me. The "Author"? With a capital A? Pray about my comprehension? To do either of those things I would have to believe in god to begin with. I've already tried that method earlier in life. Didn't work. You are quite literally saying that the way to understand what parts of the bible are true, and what parts aren't, and why it's ok that many parts aren't, you simply have to believe. So, in short, put your fingers in your ears and sing "LALALALALALAGODLALA" until your brain begins effectively blocking any attempt at reasonable discourse that can possibly shake your belief in god almighty! I, unfortunately for you, do not have the ability to deliberately contradict my mental faculties in that way, and short of a form of dementia or a brain injury, I never will. 

I asked you for a method. You basically just told me to take your word for it (by method of believing in god in advance, which then will convince you "Hey! These obvious contradictions CAN work together!". I'm not one who thinks that every religious person is insane. I think many are really stupid (young earth creationists) and sometimes it's not their fault. I think that the more intelligent ones have emotional reasons to believe, and typically won't go so far as to discuss it in depth, because even they know deep down that there's some level of bullshit to it, but they want to remain in their state of wishful thinking. I don't recommend that, but to each their own. You are actually insane it seems. This is a level of cognitive dissonance I didn't think was possible at all. Congratulations. 

contrary to your belief... I want you to go into the Bible as a non-believer... pray?  you don't need to believe in God to pray, but if you're reading scripture you must be trying to comprehend its reality in life unless you're just looking for a good story... most people looking for that type of entertainment don't turn to the Bible.... If you're trying to comprehend its reality in history then you must be also seeking the possibility of this God that doesn't exist in your mind... if you pray, what are you going to lose but a minute of your day if there is no God... if there is a God and you pray, what are you going to gain from praying? 

many people have gone into the Bible bent on being the one to ultimately prove its insanity to the world.   many of them came out of that believers.  I dare you to honestly try it.  But remember, don't stop thinking.  When one stops thinking, they get stuck in their own personal reality like those in your second paragraph. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Where in judges does it fucking say that?? What about that chapter implies that it was an angel?

really??? it's not that long of a chapter... and context applies so it might not hurt to read the whole thing... only 25 verses.  To help you out with this tedious task;

verse 3 mentions an angel

verse 6 mentions a man of God

vs. 8, man of God

vs. 9 Angel is mentioned again

vs 10, man of God

vs.  11, man...

vs. 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, etc.....

then in vs. 22 it says; "...We will surely die for we have seen God"

Do you see why I just gave you the chapter??? i mean if you just read even the first few verses you would have had your answer

Hahahaha. Yeah, because the bible was checked for slander by the authorities. Give me a break! You actually think that it's impossible for someone to have put words in god's mouth in a book? You can't honestly be serious. 

I don't try to keep it circular. I am simply bringing back points that you are evading, because you are....evading points!

It happens, as I did a similar thing below as well. That said it's important to have the stories straight.

I concede the point in Judges as well that it mentions angels. I was really exhausted writing that. Combing through bible verses is tiring, although I don't recall seeing angels at first reading, I'm not entirely sure what translation I was reading. Either way, why be worried that they saw god and it was deadly if it was angels rather than god? These people expressed knowledge at such a rule (whereas previous people like Jacob and Abram seemed not to acknowldge any such rule). 

However, in Genesis 16 it says the Angel of the lord, but it doesn't say that in Genesis 17 or 18. The entire point is that it is inconsistent. You claim some sort of contextual feature I'm missing. However, while maybe they simply got tired of writing "the angel of the lord", there are multiple times where people are said to have seen god face to face, talked to him face to face, the lord appearing unto people and saying stuff to them, to me that is a clear indication that the book claims that these people saw god, and only later says that such a thing is impossible. We're not going to agree on this point because you have a priori decided that the bible is both true and inerrant (while being inconsistent and saying that there are errors or misunderstandings of "scale", and allowing for writer error). This position is inconsistent and not worth arguing with. 

Is that what that tense means? Some sort of eternal tense that doesn't exist in English? Even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that we can't describe it even if it requires more words. 

The point is that there are verses that imply god was seen. There are others that imply that he sent a different manifestation (like an angel). There are others that say specifically that his face was seen, by some significant old testament figures like Moses and Jacob. You simply pass those off as misinterpretation or a witness assuming what Moses saw. I reject your arguments because you're wholly inconsistent in your viewing of the bible. You claim that some parts are definitely true (such as trusting anyone quoting god as having said something) but then pass off things like this because it's convenient to do so (and necessary to avoid contradictions). Can you name parts of the bible you believe such a mistake applies to (the witness made assumptions) that are not contradicted by history, science, or other parts of the bible? If so, why? If not, then it makes it seem like your criteria is "It's true until proven otherwise" which is of course the wrong way to think about anything. 

No. You rarely ever even go so far as to post a link justifying anything you say. Whenever you do, it's an essay. What I do my best to do is quote the relevant part, and then put the link in at the end to allow you to check it (and since I quote a chunk, you can use your browser's "find" function to easily make sure I didn't make it up). I might read that yet, but not tonight. Also, as I said, even if your claim is corroborated in there that some writings did that, is there also a suggestion there that it would apply to the bible? 

There you go. So can you provide me with something specific that separates Spinoza's god from Pantheism? I don't know about you, but I don't personally count Pantheism as theism (despite the name) because it simply says that everything is god in a way. But we already have a word for "everything". That word is "Everything". I personally like Dawkins's description of pantheism: sexed up atheism). Pantheism suggest a lighter concept of theism (once again, if it does at all) than deism does. It's basically just applying sentience to the universe, and to me that's a concept that's interesting, but has no basis in fact as far as I'm concerned, and also helps to muddle up terminology, as has just been demonstrated.  

You don't need to believe in god to pray? Well that may be correct, but it depends on how you define prayer, and what one does when they pray. If it's meditating, if it's having a conversation with oneself, I wouldn't classify that as praying. To me, to pray is to communicate with something that you actually thing is external to yourself, whether out loud or telepathically. 

I'm not reading scripture to entertain myself. It's a document that is relevant in literature in culture, but I simply don't believe that it contains a whole lot of specific facts about history. 

I've heard of people reading the bible and becoming atheists as a result as well. I think that the exercise of trying to prove the bible's insanity to the world is a waste of time, because people believe for bad reasons, and continue to believe against all reason. Nobody's going to find some magical verse in the bible that will just end all belief. The concept of finding a magical verse in the bible to change peoples' minds is what theists are more likely to think they will do. 

My mistake. Sorry, as I don't know why I was so agitated, and which translation I was reading. I was certain I saw no such suggestion. You're right that it says angel.

However, it doesn't change that these people were worried about having seen god. If they were mistaken, how did they know that it was an angel, instead of an exception being made in their case regardless?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hahahaha. Yeah, because the bible was checked for slander by the authorities. Give me a break! You actually think that it's impossible for someone to have put words in god's mouth in a book? You can't honestly be serious. 

the penalty was death... how likely do you think your presupposition is correct?

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't try to keep it circular. I am simply bringing back points that you are evading, because you are....evading points!

yet I've repeatedly told you I am not and have also repeatedly told you to restate them so I can answer them... I know I have answered pretty much every statement you've made without evasion... that would be an example of trolling, when you ignore the response and circle around again.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

It happens, as I did a similar thing below as well. That said it's important to have the stories straight.

I only hope that can allow you to see I'm actually trying and not evading or trying to manipulate anything. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I concede the point in Judges as well that it mentions angels. I was really exhausted writing that. Combing through bible verses is tiring, although I don't recall seeing angels at first reading, I'm not entirely sure what translation I was reading. Either way, why be worried that they saw god and it was deadly if it was angels rather than god? These people expressed knowledge at such a rule (whereas previous people like Jacob and Abram seemed not to acknowldge any such rule). 

However, in Genesis 16 it says the Angel of the lord, but it doesn't say that in Genesis 17 or 18. The entire point is that it is inconsistent. You claim some sort of contextual feature I'm missing. However, while maybe they simply got tired of writing "the angel of the lord", there are multiple times where people are said to have seen god face to face, talked to him face to face, the lord appearing unto people and saying stuff to them, to me that is a clear indication that the book claims that these people saw god, and only later says that such a thing is impossible. We're not going to agree on this point because you have a priori decided that the bible is both true and inerrant (while being inconsistent and saying that there are errors or misunderstandings of "scale", and allowing for writer error). This position is inconsistent and not worth arguing with. 

well no, I'm open to any new ideas or perspectives... I don't see yours however.  Maybe you can show me another example where you're absolutely sure they "saw God"

Jabberwocky wrote:

Is that what that tense means? Some sort of eternal tense that doesn't exist in English? Even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that we can't describe it even if it requires more words. 

The point is that there are verses that imply god was seen. There are others that imply that he sent a different manifestation (like an angel). There are others that say specifically that his face was seen, by some significant old testament figures like Moses and Jacob. You simply pass those off as misinterpretation or a witness assuming what Moses saw. I reject your arguments because you're wholly inconsistent in your viewing of the bible. You claim that some parts are definitely true (such as trusting anyone quoting god as having said something) but then pass off things like this because it's convenient to do so (and necessary to avoid contradictions). Can you name parts of the bible you believe such a mistake applies to (the witness made assumptions) that are not contradicted by history, science, or other parts of the bible? If so, why? If not, then it makes it seem like your criteria is "It's true until proven otherwise" which is of course the wrong way to think about anything. 

well, the big one in question had to be speculative be it that it specifically states that no one dared to follow Moses up the mountain, therefore no one actually witnessed the interaction between the two and therefore no one can say for certain that Moses looked at Gods face. 

Does that cover what you were asking for or do you want something else?  This is what I mean about context though and you can't just conveniently pass it off... well, I guess you could, but it would not stand up against critique.  I have to present stuff like this to many believers who critically analyze the scriptures, so I couldn't just conveniently make it up as I go without major problems along the way.    We all might not always agree, but we're careful to separate disagreement with blatent disregard for the rules.

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. You rarely ever even go so far as to post a link justifying anything you say. Whenever you do, it's an essay. What I do my best to do is quote the relevant part, and then put the link in at the end to allow you to check it (and since I quote a chunk, you can use your browser's "find" function to easily make sure I didn't make it up). I might read that yet, but not tonight. Also, as I said, even if your claim is corroborated in there that some writings did that, is there also a suggestion there that it would apply to the bible? 

right, and when you do, I still take the time to read a least a pages worth or usually more before and after to put it all in context... What it comes down to is this topic is not as simple as you might want it to be... the essays are posted as is because they are wholly relevant. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

There you go. So can you provide me with something specific that separates Spinoza's god from Pantheism? I don't know about you, but I don't personally count Pantheism as theism (despite the name) because it simply says that everything is god in a way. But we already have a word for "everything". That word is "Everything". I personally like Dawkins's description of pantheism: sexed up atheism). Pantheism suggest a lighter concept of theism (once again, if it does at all) than deism does. It's basically just applying sentience to the universe, and to me that's a concept that's interesting, but has no basis in fact as far as I'm concerned, and also helps to muddle up terminology, as has just been demonstrated.  

well, let's stop here for a bit... Do you agree that thought can only happen in a living creature/being? If so do you buy into the possibility of Spinoza's god?  Give me more information here.  Becuase believe it or not, it is a step in the direction of understanding the being of "God" that Christians believe in. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

You don't need to believe in god to pray? Well that may be correct, but it depends on how you define prayer, and what one does when they pray. If it's meditating, if it's having a conversation with oneself, I wouldn't classify that as praying. To me, to pray is to communicate with something that you actually thing is external to yourself, whether out loud or telepathically. 

I'm not reading scripture to entertain myself. It's a document that is relevant in literature in culture, but I simply don't believe that it contains a whole lot of specific facts about history. 

I've heard of people reading the bible and becoming atheists as a result as well. I think that the exercise of trying to prove the bible's insanity to the world is a waste of time, because people believe for bad reasons, and continue to believe against all reason. Nobody's going to find some magical verse in the bible that will just end all belief. The concept of finding a magical verse in the bible to change peoples' minds is what theists are more likely to think they will do. 

most atheists did become so by reading the Bible...and misunderstanding it..  

most others who have not read scritpure don't hold any belief on either side and likely could care less about the discussion/debate.

YOu're right, there is no magical verse that would convince people... that's why I keep talking about this mysterious thing called context. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

My mistake. Sorry, as I don't know why I was so agitated, and which translation I was reading. I was certain I saw no such suggestion. You're right that it says angel.

I"m used to it from you  

Jabberwocky wrote:

However, it doesn't change that these people were worried about having seen god. If they were mistaken, how did they know that it was an angel, instead of an exception being made in their case regardless?

The author somehow knew it was an angel of God... i'm not sure how the comprehension came to that particular author, I haven't looked into that book deep enough. 

As far as the people were concerned, they saw God... many times people have mistaken angels for God himself becuase they appear flooded in light and speak with authority.

 

Lol...what? Death administered by whom? God? You do realize you are having a discussion with someone who does not believe that one exists, right? If the bible is mostly made up shit, then anyone can put any words in the mouth of god, and the only potential consequences are earthly ones by people who are angered by that. That said, if god doesn't exist, then all statements quoting god are false quotes. If your belief of the bible is helped by this in any way, that's pathetic. "The bible says that the god is true, and that misquoting god is punishable by death. Therefore all quotes attributed to god in the bible are true, because they managed to get written down". LOL.

No you haven't. You have not yet named the species between which you contend there is too big a gap in the human ancestral lineage to lead to us. You brought in a species currently held by scientists to be probably a cousin further away from us than the australopithecines (although not definitively as we don't yet have enough specimens to draw a definite conclusion yet). It's still possible that Orrorin is our ancestor (or is closer to our ancestor than A Afarensis). Instead of answering my question as to where your personal problem gap is, from several types of australopithecines we've discovered through a large number of homonids we've found, to homo sapiens. You have not even ATTEMPTED to look through this, and provide me with the biggest gap in the lineage given by professional biologists, and why it is an insurmountable one. I mean, if you did, it would be ridiculous anyway, as it has been mentioned countless times that we're not going to find a specimen for every 50 generations or so to give us a smooth gap. Fossilization doesn't occur frequently enough. The species you mentioned (Orrorin Tugenensis) indeed only has several fragments that have been recovered so far. The answer there is? We don't know yet where it fits in, but we know of several possibilities. 

Nope. You're still evading what I just said above, even in this post. My mistake doesn't change that and is completely unrelated to that. My mistake doesn't magically change the fact that you refuse to actually point to a single gap in the gathered information regarding the lineage of modern homo-sapiens that is generally agreed upon by biologists, geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and almost any layperson with a decent education who doesn't adhere to your particular religious view (whether it's the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish flavour....while Jews are less likely to be Creationists, Ben Stein is still a thing). 

You know I don't think that anyone did, but for different reasons than you, right? Sometimes your responses make me think that I actually believe that there is a god, or the bible is based in some truth, or that Jesus was really divine, or that Moses was a real person, or a whole whack of other things. I don't believe any of those things. I think that the bulk of the bible is made up of mythology, hence it is describing events which didn't actually take place. We're not going to agree. The thing is, were it not for a few verses in the new testament, this argument wouldn't exist. You would probably agree with my interpretation of Exodus 33 as well (that god was seen before, but is no longer see-able). But due to those new testament verses, you have to adhere to absolutely absurd interpretations of visions and conversations with god up to that point, suggesting that it was always angels. If it was always angels, how come it only says as much sometimes? There wasn't a lack of language. They knew the word angel in Hebrew, and they used it. The omission of it in some verses makes no sense unless it was deliberate. 

You answered absolutely nothing in this part of my post. You literally addressed 0 of it. You implied an eternal tense that I challeneged you to explain. You didn't do that. 

You didn't address (and I just re-iterated it in repsonse to the above chunk of post) that sometimes, the bible says "angel of god" and sometimes not. One would think that there is a reason for omitting that word in certain areas. You ignore that, and just say that either it's always an angel, or that people avert their eyes (which it doesn't say either, and if it does, it does not in every case, leaving you with the same problem). 

I then challenged you to provide me with a verse in the bible that is not contradicted by another bible verse (I know you think that none of them are, but you probably can see what I deem a contradiction, so avoid those), that is not contradicted either by science, history, archaeology, but you STILL think is inaccurate, like the suggestion that makes it seem that Moses saw god. You didn't even try it. Show me one part of the bible that you have deemed untrue by this particular criteria (writer making assumptions not having witnessed the actual event) that I wouldn't have grounds to disprove on my own. I ask you, because you seem to have a criteria that I don't, that can show a bible verse to be a bad assumption or an exaggeration by the writer. I'm curious to see how concise your criteria is, and where it can be applied. So find me another verse, that I would simply say "I think it didn't happen, but I can't disprove this particular verse" that has a similar problem. 

 

Caposkia wrote:

right, and when you do, I still take the time to read a least a pages worth or usually more before and after to put it all in context... What it comes down to is this topic is not as simple as you might want it to be... the essays are posted as is because they are wholly relevant. 

I don't believe that. *snip*

Once again, if you don't read the links that you yourself post, how in the hell am I supposed to believe that you read the ones that I do? Also, as I said, I typically copy and paste leave a short excerpt that you can find in there easily, and then leave you to read the whole article, if you want, to make sure that I am not misrepresenting by quoting out of context. You, instead, post a link where the first few sentences agree with part of what you propose, and then the rest of it completely shatters your whole position. It's pretty incredible.

Yes, I believe that thought (in a context of conscious thought) can only occur in a living being. Thought is a process of the brain, and thought has never been observed outside of it. To paraphrase two people, I'll begin with Sam Harris.

We now know so much about the brain, and how it works, and that everything that happens related to thought occurs within it, and is dependant on certain physical properties within it. When you damage certain parts of the brain from an accident, or a stroke, or a disease, a person loses certain abilities, memories, even personality traits. When you damage more, these things get obviously further damaged. We're supposed to believe that this is true every time it has been tested, but then when you go and destroy the entire brain, the process reverses itself and you're present somewhere remembering grandma and speaking English. 

And Sean Carroll (on near death experiences)

So this leaves us with one of two possibilites. Either there is something about consciousness that is separate from the brain and has eluded every single scientific test ever performed, all over the world....or people hallucinate when they're nearly dead! 

 

On your specific point, no I don't buy into the possibility of Spinoza's god. Either he is redefining everything as being god (which is stupid, as it only serves to make our language less precise), or he is attributing consciousness to inatimate objects. 

If the Christian god falls into a category of a disembodied mind, or something of the sort, then your entire argument fails as well. There is no evidence for such a thing. Also, if it's disembodied, then it's not physical, so nobody can see god as it's impossible (not because there is a consequence of it). When you get into definitions this murky, I don't even have to reduce your argument to the absurd. It does that on its own. I forgot which agologist (Sye Ten Delusional maybe) said something along the lines of that "everything is physical or conceptual". Physical entities like hammers, and conceptual ones like numbers. When asked "is god physical or conceptual" he said "neither". The point is to keep god ill-defined to make sure that he is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable also means unprovable, hence you are believing in a god on no evidence by definition. 

caposkia wrote:

most others who have not read scritpure don't hold any belief on either side and likely could care less about the discussion/debate.

This is one of the most painful sentences I've ever seen you write, and I'm drawing from a pretty potent mine here. Those who haven't read scripture, if they have no other belief in any other gods, are atheists. That is what the word means. It describes one who does not believe in god. That is quite literally what the word means. Atheism means "without theism". Atheist is a person who is without theism. "Don't hold any belief on either side"....wow. I know virtually nothing about Sikhism. I still think that it's not true, due to what I know of any religion. Does that not make me an A-Sikhist? Of course it does. I don't have to examine their beliefs to personally come to a conclusion on whether I think that they're true or not. For me, "god wants the men to wear certain headwear at all times" is ridiculous enough to not need to know anything further. 

The reason this post pissed me off as it did is because you are also trying to suggest that atheism means "someone who has rejected Christianity" or "someone who hates God" (with a capital G...as in your particular god). That is something I will not stand for, because this kind of crap is used to perpetuate destructive lies. 

However, it doesn't change that these people were worried about having seen god. If they were mistaken, how did they know that it was an angel, instead of an exception being made in their case regardless?

 Wait, you claim that it is impossible to claim there is a gap, then in the SAME SENTENCE claim there is a gap?!?!? How intellectually dishonest can you get?

Ok. So if death for misquoting the Lord was done on earth, how do the executioners verify whether it was a real quote from god or not? 

www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
(thanks for the link beyond saving)

Yes, it's possible that some of these things we find aren't our ancestors. As you can see in the chart, it seems that we aren't descended from homo-habilis for example. However, if that was the first hominid fossil ever found by archaeologists, they might think that we are, because it possesses clearly human traits distinct from other primates. However, even though homo habilis isn't our ancestor, the prediction made by evolution is that you will find a large number of extinct branches in any lineage. So if we were to find that one first, we could make the mistaken assumption that they are our ancestors. We, however, have enough specimens where we can say, as that chart shows, who our ancestors are. There are some interesting uncertainties (such as whether we are descended from homo ergaster or from mid-generation homo erectus). However, that doesn't make a giant difference. We found what we expected to find.

Now if it were the case that we were descended from Homo Erectus, but we actually never found a single specific specimen that had homo sapien descendants, how would we possibly know? We wouldn't because those sorts of specific differences aren't possible to discern from examining fossils. Similarly, you could watch Maury Povich and say that the father looks like the child, but the DNA test is the only way we have to actually tell for certain. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, homo sapiens aren't considered to be descended from Neanderthals, but they were our cousins who lived simultaneously with homo sapiens some time ago. It is evident, since we DO have Neanderthal DNA, that some of us are part Neanderthal. That much is certain. So if you are to ask about a gap between Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens, you are asking the wrong question. We had a common ancestor, and some interbreeding occurred. So while we can't say whether we came from Homo Erectus or from Homo Ergaster, you can examine the traits of them, and find a smooth progression, regardless of which path you take. 

So in that link, you have the names of the species we are said to have evolved from. Find me where there is a problem involving some abrupt change in traits that could not possibly be accounted for by evolution. 

I'm calling you out on not answering my question. So now, Beyond Saving has done some of the work. You now have before you a lineage as understood by scientists. Do keep in mind that the data seems to go back as far as 1993, and no more recent than 2007. There could be some outdated info, but I'm happy to go with this for now as it seems quite comprehensive. So now that the first part of the work is done for you, find me gaps that can't possibly be explained by evolution. Your move. 

I don't know how anything I'm doing can possibly be seen as trolling. I think you're just throwing the accusation at me because I accused you of the same. It's been in your list of (bad) tactics for a while now. Like when I brought up special pleading, and you kept accusing everyone of it, without seemingly having any understanding of what it actually is. 

I disagree. Where in the old testament does it say as specifically in those new testament verses that nobody has ever seen god? The latter part of Exodus 33 suggests that Moses won't see god at that point (at least not his face...only his...back parts) but nowhere is there, to my knowledge, a full on blanket assertion that god can not be seen with the person having seen him remaining alive. It suggests it as a rule later on (I think it was that Judges verse...too lazy to look it up this moment), but it doesn't imply any such thing much if at all in the first 2 books of the bible, that include what appears to describe face to face meetings with god with some frequency. I will not agree that the immediate context implies what you say it does. When it does say angel, then ok. When it doesn't, then I disagree. Especially since when a verse is found that doesn't say or even imply an angel, you assume that the writer didn't witness it and got it wrong, or his face wasn't actually looked at for some reason. Of course, I also think that you would probably decline to take that sort of creative license with a great majority of the rest of the bible. You take this creative license with this part because there is a contradiction, and you have to do something to square it. 

I realize that. But your interpretation is that the bible can't actually be wrong...or it can, but it's not. Your position is hard to gather here. If it was written in different times in different people, how have you come to the conclusion that it's all true, rather than it being mostly false, as I have come to believe? 

Because there are a great hefty shit-ton of verses in the bible. You're the one who claims to be knowledgable on it. You brought up a book that contains such statements. Why don't you present me with a few verses from Job that are assumptions, and in your opinion incorrect? I don't think that Job was a person in history either (although I've never looked it up, I could be wrong), but for the purpose of making this exercise far less annoying for everyone, I will grant that Job existed.

There is question based around the book of Job.  Thats' for another thread, but lets' see what we have. 

Verse 22, Eliphaz Accuses and Exhorts Job.  The very beginning of the book states that Job is blameless. 

Chapter 24 Job makes assumptions about God ignoring wrongs. 

Chapter 15 Eliphaz assumes Job presumes too much thinking that what Job says is not of his own true knowledge.

job before was speaking of the finality of death. 

Chapter 11, Zophar rebukes Job... for what?  well, if JOb is blameless, nothing. 

I could go on.

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

I don't believe that. *snip*

then don't read the links, but don't argue with me about how my links aren't being posted, or aren't relevant or are too long.  IF you're not going to take the time to read context, then we're never going to get anywhere with this discussion.  It's not resolved with a special magical statement like you would like to believe.  IT is resolved with discussion and study.

 

 Thanks Dana

Jabberwocky wrote:

No. I don't have to do anything. I am the one of us who is satisfied that the progression posited by biologists is correct. You are the one who is convinced that they are wrong. It is your job to find me the problems that I don't see, yet you claim exist. I asked you even more specifically in another thread. So respond here, or in the flood thread. I posted a list there. I want you to find pictures of the fossils. I want you to, then, find a feature that shows a type of change that can't be explained by evolution by natural selection. I want you to post links to the pictures in question. So responding to this, either properly respond to it, or say "refer to the flood thread", and respond there. We can trim some fat off these posts that way by consolidating that.

you did on the other thread, I responded some details on the other thread as well, so we can refer there for this. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Paragraph 1, I disagree. You implied an eternal context that you claimed doesn't exist in English. You have provided no explanation for that. All you have done is claimed you have some education in Hebrew. I doubt that. Everything you've posted on the topic can probably be easily googled. Further, your claim on being educated in meteorology has been, to my satisfaction, disproven. This is evidence that you are willing to lie about your own credentials. Could you show me a good reference to demonstrate this eternal context in Hebrew of which you speak? Until you do, I will assume that this eternal context is something that you have invented in order to evade a point. My answer to paragraph 2 is The fact that no mention is made before Exodus 33:20 that god can't be seen. There is a reference of Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt, but she (and Lot and his daughters) were instructed to not look upon the carnage. Nowhere is it implied that it is the seeing of god that caused her bizarre demise. Further, nowhere does it say that it's god's face specifically that is the problem either. So if Moses saw god's back parts, he saw god (at least partially....back-partialy. Hah...hahaha)On asking you to prove a negative, where am I asking you to do that? If it's something regarding the bible, then yes it IS possible to prove a negative. Can you prove that life doesn't exist on other planets? Well, not really, no. Not until you find a way to reliably check all other planets for signs of life. Can I prove to you that Optimus Prime isn't in the bible? Yes. That is because the bible is a closed system to which we have full access to. It is possible to read the bible many times in your life start to finish. Until someone demonstrates that the bible talks about Optimus Prime, and considering the fact that a very large number of people in history, and today, have read the bible and none of them have ever mentioned Optimus Prime being included in it, then we can reliably conclude that the bible does not talk about Optimus Prime. So once again, if I am asking you to prove a broad negative, it's frequently not possible. Within the confines of the bible however, it absolutely is. So where is it that I challeneged you to prove a negative? Also, I don't think I challenged you to a negative in the first place. Please point out where I did. 

I've named the tense for you in Hebrew and explained it.  Probably can be easily googled?  yea probably, so google it.Moses did see God partially.. there was no question about that, only that he didn't see His face. you asked me to prove Moses did not see Gods face.. we've talked about several verses.  nothing specifically states that there was a witness seeing MOses look at Gods face, which then would have had to allow that witness to also see Gods face to confirm it, and there's a lot of evidence suggesting people understood that no one sees Gods face... there's nothing to suggest that it was a new rule after a certain point. Such petty things here... do we really need to keep going with this?  it's not proving your point and it seems petty to me.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Phew. I hate splitting these up because our threads do that too much as it is. But this is a major statement that is demonstrably false. The Exodus, for one, has been for all intents and purposes proven false. Jewish archaeologists set out to find evidence of it for the purpose of proving it true, accidentally proved it to be false instead. Where evidence would have to be found, they instead found none. 

what did they look for?

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Further, the fact that if Jesus was anywhere near as noticeable and influential as the bible claimed him to be, he would have been noticed by at LEAST one contemporary historian. He wasn't. This means that he didn't exist in any way as a figure resembling what the gospels profess. Further, if the gospel writers themselves are to be reliable, then there is no way if they were all present for his death (or the writers were writing from reliable sources), that all of the saints rose from the dead on the spot, and 75% of the writers missed that detail, or felt it for some reason un-noteworthy to write about. Of course, I welcome you to give me a reason. However, if your reason is that the gospel writers were comparing notes and wanted to eliminate redundancies, then there should be no details aside from important ones (Jesus existed, was born, crucified, died, buried, rose from the dead) that should occur twice anywhere. However, we know that's not the case. So, what is your explanation for that glaring omission from 75% of the gospels included in the bible? 

historians accept that there was a Jesus who claimed to be God's son.  wiki it. it happened 4 times from 4 different sources that have been put into the Bible.  The Quran also documents the life of Jesus and accepts Jesus as a great prophet.  There are other outside sources as well that acknowledge Jesus... wiki it.

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Oh, shit. You're right. That Muhammad guy didn't come in and write his own book commenting specifically on what's true and what's false or anything, nor do close to 2 billion people on Earth believe that today (this was sarcasm btw). Once again, even if it wasn't the fact that rational people had disproven many major parts of the bible, your argument falls apart far before that. I think that Christianity and Islam are both utter bullshit. However, they are both based on separate scriptures that are held by very large amounts of people (close to 2 billion each) as the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unless you can demonstrate the Quran to be false using a proven reliable method that can't also disprove parts of the bible, then your argument is void even before I get to specifics. It just so happens that I got to specifics above though. Virtually every Christian I have ever heard attempt to disprove the Quran, cite the bible. Of course, they don't actually demonstrate that the bible is reliable to begin with. They just assert that if it contradicts the bible, it must be wrong. That is not how we reliably determine what is true or false.

how about that Muhammad was originally trying to preach to the Jews about the new comming, then claimed to be visited by a forceful angel who forced him to write the Quran though He was illiterate.  Muhammad is also one person who wrote one long book... the Bible is 66 books written over a 1500 year span by many many different unrelated authors.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Let's just focus on the first one. Do you believe that this is an actual contradiction? If so, how do you determine which of the 2 statements is true? 

it is... you determine what's true by continuing to read the story to the end. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 No. But I think people might not be reading the whole posts and are skimming them, in which case I like to remind anyone reading (including yourself) of the important points.  Anyway, I skimmed through the link. Not an extraordinarily detailed look, but does it not say that differences in details (as ones you claim in the bible) are identified because there are writings for both older, and more recent versions, and the differences can be found in the writings? I can find nowhere that links that to how the bible was written. Not to mention, my challenge to you was to find a reference to history being written in this way. The book of the dead is not a history book anyhow. 

neither is the Bible... the Bible is a book of God. how can you reiterate the important points when it seems you keep forgetting them as the threads go on? 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Not support my perspective? I have no idea what you mean. In post 900 and around there, I showed you evidence that John was understood by scholars to have been written by 3 people. Your response was basically "I need to see more evidence that John didn't write it". I can't argue with an assertion if you're going to be just asserting it without evidence. I can only point out that you have no evidence. This line of questioning had you asserting that John wrote the gospel of John. I found no evidence to suggest that, and evidence to suggest that's impossible as it seems to have been written by 3 people, rather than one. Your response, rather than attempting to discuss why that evidence isn't good, or providing evidence for your position, is to simply re-assert your own position, in a tone that implies that to you, it is true until proven false. You have, at no point anywhere on this whole forum as far as I know, never provided actual confirming evidence for any of these things that you hold to be true. True things tend to seem more likely than false things BECAUSE there is evidence for them. The more you examine that which is true, the more evidence you can often find to confirm it. The bible seems less true the more one examines it critically. That means it is likely not true. 

how is my stance for the Bible any different than your stance against it?  and don't tell me facts or evidence because you've proven that's not the case.  you seem to negatively comment that I believe the Bible is true until proven false... Don't you hold the stance that it's false until proven true?  So how are you different than me there..and just for the record, of course you need to prove to me your assertions... why would I just accept them? 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 No it isn't. We don't ignore any known stimuli when we examine these things. You suggest that the "possibility" of other external stimuli is the problem. You are positing something that is undetectable, or at least thus far has yet to be detected. So you are talking in the realm of the (at least for now) untestable. However, just like your problems with evolution, your ignorance shines through extra bright here. Just because you personally don't believe that the scientific explanation is accurate, or at least complete, does not mean that it isn't. The brain is very complicated. However, we know what sort of stimuli it reacts to, and what sort of stimuli it doesn't.

it also doesn't mean that it is... I"m just taking one Quantum theory here.. and you call me ignorant for it.  nice try though, but it's not my own theory.  I don't remember where I read it, but it's not provable at this time, so not worth discussing further, especially if quantum scientists are ignorant. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

  At the end of the day, your argument is "We don't know. Therefore, I posit that the Christian god is real and is responsible for the things we don't fully understand yet, and also some of the things we believe we fully understand, but we don't.". That is your argument here. It's a very weak argument. 

and at the end of the day your arguement of "it's false, you're ignorant" therefore there is no God is also weak.  What's your point?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Children being a gift from god (and resulting anti-contraception doctrines) are not limited to the Catholic church. But here is the thing, we know that condoms aren't 100% effective, as they can break. Are you saying that god is responsible for every condom breaking, or only some? How do we determine which ones are god, and which ones aren't? The same goes for birth control pills being ineffective. I don't doubt that they can fail, even if taken correctly, however, I think that most of the time it fails it can be chalked up to other reasons (broken dosage pattern, other medication or chemicals interfering). So my question is, basically, for those taking precautions, do they get pregnant anyway because the methods aren't 100% effective, or because god causes it? Can it be either? How do we determine which it is? 

I don't know and I think you're missing the point... the point is if God wants it to happen, He'll make it happen despite our efforts. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Elaborate please. 

The aspect experiment is where they took two subjects, one who was deemed capable of retreiving extra-sensory input and another deemed capable of transporting it.. in other words, they could allegedly read each others mind.  They were put in separate closed rooms with no visions outward.  ONe was given a picture to look at, the other person in a separate room was asked to describe the picture... though the details were not 100% clear, aspects of the picture were described by the person in the opposing room.  The study was left inconclusive becuause the subject was not able to explicity describe all the details fo the picutre, only some aspects of it.  Thus, ti is theoretically possible then for a brain to pick up the signals of another brain though undetectable in such far distances and through walls.  (Alain Aspect) 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 The reason atheists frequently bring up unicorns is because atheists typically believe that they and god both belong to the realm of mystical creatures.  Ok, so you make a positive claim that unicorns are not physically real. How have you come to that conclusion? What if there are unicorns, but someone, or some group of people, has gone to great measures to hide that reality for some reason? 

in the research that I've done, it seems all accounts of seeing a unicorn have come down to either seeing a nahrwal at sea or mistaking other animals for horses at distance... there also was one case where there was a reported birth defect in a horned animal where the horn did take on the shape of the unicorn horn... don't remember what animal or where that came from though. That's how I've come to that conclusion, but if you have new information on these magnificant creatures, by all means.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

 No it doesn't. Do you believe that my old VCR is actually a reincarnation of Genghis Khan? Probably not. You've never given it any thought until now, but before you ever read this, then it would be true that you didn't believe such a thing. If you've never given the concept of god any thought, and the first time you heard it, the concept itself was completely foreign to you, it still means that you did not believe in god until that point, even if you never professed that view (be it internally or externally).  Also, how am I trying to discredit truth here? I'm trying to get you to use concise terms that have proper definitions. I'm also trying to get you away from using the term "atheist" to mean "someone who rejects god", or anything of that sort. The term applies to anyone who does not specifically profess a belief in a god. Everyone is either a theist (and they can split into monotheists, and polytheists) or an atheist. There is no third category.  So out of curiosity, what truth was I trying to discredit? 

for which part?  about what being an atheist is?  Again if I didn't know you had a VCR, I wouldn't have a specific belief about it... it's not disbelief.. it's no thought.  It would mean I don't believe in somethin until that point, but it also would mean I didn't disbelieve it until that point as well. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Is that a regular description of visions of god? 

or angels, yes 

jabberwocky wrote:

 I know what context is. You're the one twisting context in virtually every situation here, not me. 

 

it is what it is... look at it how you want, but i have not changed. 

I'm not going to spend lots of time here. I went through a couple of posts up from this searching text strings, and couldn't find your Hebrew word. If you knew it by heart Mr. Hebrew scholar, could you post it again? 

 Any archaeological evidence of a group of people travelling the path said to have been travelled in Exodus, which you would find considering the number of people and time taken to travel indicated by the book. In this case, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Guess what they found? Fucking nothing. Were they wrong?

 No they don't.

 A 700 year span is a closer figure actually. 

And the books contradict one another, so no surprise. The scriptures of the pantheon of Hinduism are written in a similar fashion. They just were never codified by one authority as the bible was. 

I asked you to demonstrate the Quran false by a method that can't also disprove the bible. You commented on how they were written. It's possible for a large group of people to write many books about a common topic and be correct, and it is also possible for one person to write a large book about a topic and be correct. The method of writing does not prove or disprove anything. While you didn't cite the bible to disprove the Quran, you did imply that its method of composition makes it more valid somehow. I reject your reasoning, and I believe I have effectively explained why. 

Umm...even if reading it to the end makes it consistent (which I can't comment on as I haven't ever read Job in its entirety) it can't make it true. Can you point to the part, though, that explains that contradiction, which part is true, and why? Or are you going to ask me to read all of Job?

 

 

Well, so you admit that the bible doesn't speak of real history. Then we're done here? All you have to do is admit that the bible does not describe real world events that actually happened (like the flood, the tower of "babble", the Exodus, etc.) and we can agree to disagree. And, for curiosity's sake, which important points am I forgetting or ignoring?

The bible is a document. Sure it was written by countless people, and codified at least twice in a way (once into the Hebrew scriptures, then later into the Christian scriptures, the original which dropped a few original books as the Catholic bible does from the OT, and later the protestants included all of it). You are the one claiming that it is all true. The minimum requirement for that is internal consistency. It doesn't meet that criteria as it contradicts itself. It also contains claims that contradict science, history, archaeology, biology, and more. It's not a baseless stance on my part that the bible is untrue. It is on a solid foundation actually. See, I won't concede that we're on the same ground, or similar ground on this. This is because I am clearly right, and you are clearly wrong. Creationists (especially) always start by trying to pigeon-hole both sides into a position of similar merit, because they can't create a good enough lie to take the higher ground to begin with. Luckily, when the facts are on your side, you CAN do that. You're wrong. You're demonstrably wrong. 

 Also, you have (once again) avoided my specific point regarding the gospel of John, because the defenders of religion must avoid specifics, as that is how one sees the bullshit. I said in my post that you simply re-asserted your position. So now, instead of re-asserting again because you've been called on it, you've just tried to move on to the next argument, ignoring the fact that you were challenged on a specific point. Dishonest again. 9th commandment (or 8th, depending how Catholic you still think)

 You're just taking one Quantum Theory? What does that mean? The truth is that those who are simultaneously experts on the brain AND quantum theory, disagree with what you say. There are some who claim such experise (such as Deepak Chopra) that disagree with what I've just said, but they are also demonstrably charlatans. Deepak Chopra, and anyone who promotes similar things are lying. Either very, VERY deluded, or lying to make good money. That makes me angry, as I find it unethical to mislead people for personal financial gain. Don't let yourself be caught in that sort of bullshit.

No, I'm not. I'm getting too specific and you don't like it, so you don't feel like adequately answering the question. This whole thing was about sex, birth control, etc. Does god also condemn masturbation? Because if he does not want it to ever happen, he's doing an awful job. A large percentage of people masturbate. Also, it's perfectly ok that they do, and if you disagree with that, I would like to hear why. But if god wants it to happen, he'll make it happen? So do you actually believe that a guy who got a vasectomy, verified a sperm count of 0 yesterday a few weeks after, wears a spermicide condom just because, has sex with a girl who has an IUD in, is on the pill, and has had her tubes tied, god will find a way to make her pregnant? Do you seriously believe that? 

Do you wonder why it wasn't possible to describe all details? When I hear an experiment that implies some details were seen, I call bullshit on the study. Could you provide me with evidence of the example you propose? A link to the study perhaps?

 So you believe that those who actually claim that unicorns exist were mistaken, and have actually even described why??? That's actually one of the most impressive things I've seen you write here. Why not apply the same level of scepticism to god? 

 But it quite simply does. I mean, if you ask a question such as "Do I own a computer or not?" You can agree that this is a valid question. I do own one. It's possible that I only own a tablet, or even only a smartphone, and am typing all of these posts on such a device. The reason that you are not a "jabberwockycomputerist" or an "ajabberwockycompuerist" is because  A. I probably do own one, as typing these posts on a tablet would suck, andB. Both scenarios are actually plausible, hence a neutral position is valid until better information comes in.  As a matter of probability alone, I believe it's most likely that you don't own a vinyl copy of the single "Driving in my car" by the group "Madness". I am an ACaposkiaDrivingInMyCarMadnessist. An agnostic one at that. But not 50/50. More like...say 92/8 or so. If I had more knowledge of your ownership of a record player, or other vinyl records, that number would change. However, due to th obscurity of that single, it would still weigh greatly towards "probably not". You're implying that if you didn't know I had a VCR, you wouldn't have thought about it. But that's BS. What if I actually don't? The fact that I mentioned my possible ownership of one means that you have connected ownership of a VCR to me, and have evaluated a likelihood of me owning one. So whether I do or not, the mere fact that I've injected that idea into your head means that you are able now to evaluate a likelihood. When you read what I say, you have to, by definition, think about it. It's how our brains work.  So, in the same way that nobody who died before fossils of dinosaurs were found believed that such creatures existed (even if it was because the idea was never planted into their heads), one who is never presented with a god concept does not believe that such a being exists. 

Correct. The only consistent part of your view of context is....well, there is none, unless you can utter the paradoxical statement that your inconsistency is all that is consistent. 

 

So, answer my challenge at the end of the other thread. If your response to that part of that post is not a comprehensive and specific highlighting of the problems of transitional forms in the lineage of humans as understood by biologists, then we're done. I've made far too many concessions as it is.