A word to those who invoke The Deity constantly.

Post Reply New Topic

... and that, along with obfuscation, is at least part of Sand's specific intent.

You do fairly well at maintaining focus and remaining "on point" even amidst Sand's silly and often mindless, well-thought-out distractions, but that does not matter to him because others have become disinterested and have stopped listening to anyone at all along the way.

Ah, yes, and then, of course, there is his condescending and disingenuous BS intended to get others to join his scoffing:

If I openly expressed my opinion of your mental capabilities I would quickly be banned. I have no more patience left for this type of discussion.

True. And point taken.

Generally I think our exchanges are more good-natured than hostile. But case in point is Sand's last comment--changing the subject to avoid clarification or to concede that there are errors in his logic, not to mention introducing a veiled personal-attack fallacy. A stock response to a personal attack accusation will be that the attack is justified by saying the intent is to "shake things up" or "bring me back to my senses."

I COULD pursue it, but trying to outdo someone else's abrasiveness--even if the argument is successful--only succeeds in upsetting the opponent. I, for one, actually do value Sand's presence in spite of his apparent shortcomings. I have my doubts as to whether I can win Sand over to my perspective, but one can always hope...

Rubbish! You have done that many times!



I doubt that is true, but maybe so ...

I thought you stopped reading Sand's posts quite some time ago Leejosepho. I still read them, because there is usually not much in them to read, though I rarely respond to them mostly for reasons that you mentioned. The only time I do respond to them is to mention something that it might be good for him to think about, however, it is becoming painfully obvious that provoking any thought is Sand is too much to hope for. He finished thinking many years ago and is now content to pass his conclusions on to the next generation.

First, let us all be cautious here: Talking about Sand's (or anyone else's) *actions* is different from breaking rules here and talking specifically about Sand (or anyone else).

Personally, I do not read Sand's posts. However, I did jump in here on behalf of someone else.

The sanitary laws indicate a knowledge of microbes by the one who provided them. As you said, it was a prescientific-era, so Moses didn't know. In Egypt, however, there were even laws such as "if you get a cut, apply fly droppings", so the "medical" knowledge of the day was crap in comparison to that which was put in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Biology and cosmology.


Yes, there is archeological evidence for some historical aspects from the Bible, the issue is SOME, given that there is no evidence for tales such as the expulsion from paradise, the flood, events of the tower of babel and the Exodus, evidence of being as historically depicted in the Bible.

And the issue of people and places, would not account much as evidence of tales being classified as historically factual, given that for literary purposes, fictional accounts can include some aspects of the real world, places and people, and scholars pretty much believe that the Bible is not exactly an historical book but written with theological purposes, meaning that the tales depicted may not be factual.


I believe ruveyn means scientific fact and many claims from the Bible cannot be examined with the scientific method.

Biology? Indeed? Ya know, that last I heard of the Shroud of Turin, it was believed by many to have been faked or perhaps at the very least belonged to someone other than to whom it was attributed. So, no biological evidence there.

Cosmology? The best case you have against the Bible is theories regarding the age of the Earth and maybe the universe. But theories regarding the age of the universe are speculative at best, and well-educated Biblical scholars admit that the Bible gives no certainty over the actual age of the earth. Going strictly on the numbers we do have, we come up with something like 6,000 years. But since the Bible is less concerned with chronology, the Bible leaves the date of creation open. Even evolution is not incompatible with special creation.

No evidence of the pre-Exodus expulsion? Well, you're ignoring the customs of the pharaohs. First of all, the pharaohs tended to have histories written ahead of time, particularly before battles were fought when outcomes were written before the battles even took place. This was done in keeping with the view that the pharaoh himself was a deity, with false reports being given as propaganda to strengthen his position as the ruler of Egypt.

What happened with the Israelites was a MAJOR embarrassment to the pharaoh and his administration, conclusively proving that either the God of the Israelites was more powerful than Ra and that, perhaps, pharaoh only had weak power or none at all.

Besides that, the Israelites either had little contact with the inhabitants of the geographical areas they passed through or the inhabitants avoided the Israelites like the plague. Once in Canaan, they proceeded to wipe out the inhabitants of the region.

So there would have been very little record of the movements of the Israelites because very few people would have had reason for concern. The ones who WERE affected didn't survive for very long. And any other records about the Exodus would have been buried or destroyed by none other than time itself.

The Bible, however, DOES provide a record that has survived. It's a shame that the only surviving record that had any concern at all regarding the Israelites seems to be the most ignored. It would be like, say, a Russian denying the American Civil War because most of the sources about the war originated from within the United States!

Further, accounts of Jesus were compiled from eyewitnesses. So denying the works of Christ is like saying that the BP oil spill never happened only because you weren't there and all you have to go on are media reports and the accounts of those whose jobs were affected by the destruction of fishing waters.

And some can. For example the Sun and Moon standing still over Gibeon. Not possible. For that to happen the rotation of the earth would need to be halted. Even is such a torque could be applied (how???) the result would be the utter destruction of everything on the surface. Oceans would go flying over the shores (because of inertia) and all coastal (and even inland) areas would be utterly drowned. No great tidal flooding was recorded any where in the world about the time that was supposed to have happened (about 1200 b.c.e. give or take) nor is there any physical evidence that such oceanic activity ever happened.

Then there is the little matter of the four corners of the earth (arbah confot ha'aretz). Spherical surfaces don't have corners. The long and skinny is that the Bible implies the earth is flat, which it most certainly is not.

Then there is the age of the earth. Radiological dating (not to be confused with carbon 14 dating) indicates the earth is over four billion years old. Bishop Ussher interpreting the Bible literally computed the creation in the year 4004 b.c.e. Even allowing for a ten to twenty percent error the ages is way off. The Bible cannot be literally true, regarding the creation.

Now taking the dimensions of the Ark literally, there would not be enough room about to store two specimens of every sexually reproducing species. So the Ark story is clearly a myth.

One does not have to debunk every statement in the Bible. One debunks enough to convince hims (or her) self that the Bible is a book of stories, not a book of fact --- actual happenings.

Obviously poetical exclamations and moral judgments cannot be subjected to empirical criticism. The assertions in Koheleth (or Ecclisiastes, as you heathens call it) are not empirically testable, by and large. They are the opinions and attitudes of the author or authors of the work.

ruveyn

ruveyn

^^Greetings everyone. Thank you very much for writing as I am very much enjoying this debate. I believe that a potential problem here is that there is partial evidence for both sides and I believe is almost impossible to obtain conclusive evidence for either side from what is available. There may be some parts within the bible that to many may seem very silly (many of which ruveyn has stated) to many, but then this does not disprove the rest of what is written within the bible.

For instance, I really enjoy Descartes' meditations. However I believe that I agree only with his first two meditations and none thereafter.

Perhaps I am very lucky with my standing that I am agnostic. In many ways once I have established that neither side may be completely proved, I only attempt to contend with matters that I feel cause harm. For instance, many devout Catholics wish to remove rights from homosexual individuals and believe that non-humans have no souls (although many atheists also believe the latter - although the term used my many atheists would be sentient).

Although there is a problem here as fundamentally logical arguments are very unlikely to sway the very religiously devout (or indeed Scientifically, as many would use my low standing as an argument against me). This is of course assuming that I had the correct logical arguments at hand (I am not very skilled).

Also, if there indeed is a God, I personally cannot decide which is the true religion. Therefore the only course of action for me that I feel logical is for me to do what I feel is right (also using what I learn from religious individuals of their religion to help me). Then, if I were to doomed in death for my accomplishments, then so be it. There would be nothing I personally feel that I could have done differently with the knowledge I was provided. If there exists no God, then my actions still stand.

Oh dear, I am very sorry for typing a very large amount.

I do about the same, actually.



Not the true scientist. Only the religionist merely posing as a scientist would do that.



Again, and apart from "if there indeed is", I do about the same.

What exactly is a "true scientist" anyway, as it seems that the definition of it seems to keep getting narrower and narrower with regard to trying to define the term in such a way as to argue by definition that "there are no true scientists who are creationists" that most scientists who are not creationist would also be no longer "scientists" as well. It is the "No True Scotsman" except, now it is that practically all the Scottish are no longer to be consider "Scottish" by method of definition alteration alone.

Personally, I would say it is someone whose reports/results are and remain objective irregardless of his or her own religious view (if s/he even has one).

Here is something interesting I found:



I suspect a true scientist just goes on about his work and never even mentions being one.

Maybe it's like calling a biologist a scientist and saying that's not unlike calling Wagner a classical composer. "Scientist" is a broad term, and the only person I ever met who introduced herself to me as a "scientist" only did so because she was in the habit of it with other people who couldn't possibly understand her work. When I asked her exactly what her field was, she said, "I'm an entomologist with [name] Laboratory and Experiment Station." So I said, "Ah, so you're a bug lady."

One of my students is also a scientist, but doesn't call himself that. He owns his own laboratory for agricultural soil analysis (about the only way you can make BIG bucks in the Mississippi Delta). It sounds very profound, but rather than empty research, this guy can tell farmers EXACTLY what and how much chemicals to buy to grow whatever they're planting in a particular season.

Your friend is an applied scientist, apparently an applied chemist with a specialty in agriculture. There are all sorts of scientists. Some do basic research and attempt to extend the frontiers of the physical and biological sciences. Some do applied work. Some use science in engineering applications. There are many sciences all connected with finding and using nature and what it has to offer us. Since there are many scientific disciplines and specialties it is not clear that there is only one scientific methodology. I suspect physics and biology have some substantial methodological differences and distinctions. For one thing, biology is much more complex than physics and it is unlikely that one day there will be a Unified Theory of Life.

To the extent that scientists are bound to observe nature empirically, science differs from religion. Scientific theories can never be more than provisional because there are always new facts which lead us to modify or abandon our theories. Religion dogma and theology is bulletproofed against any kind of falsification.

ruvevyn