112 replies to this topic

[Spademan]

Balloon guy, on Monday, June 29th, 2009, 1:47 PM, said:

I suspect Harris takes himself so serious that he can't debate in this manner.

Harris can be kind of funny.

[JOhnWaters]

why dont you idiots just read a history book and see how christianity and later islam are just modifications of ancient jewish beliefs. the Mesopotamians and Egyptions had various gods for different aspects of life, then the jews came along and invented the idea of there being one all powerful god, and it progressed from there. is it really so hard to believe that all this stuff was just made up to explain the world around them that they just could not comprehend at all?

[vbnautilus]

Spademan, on Monday, June 29th, 2009, 7:08 PM, said:

Harris can be kind of funny.

that is a good clip. i know SH pretty well and he does indeed have a sense of humor. however, i don't think he and BG would appreciate each other's debating styles. maybe I should arrange this just to see...

[Spademan]

vbnautilus, on Monday, June 29th, 2009, 9:00 PM, said:

that is a good clip. i know SH pretty well and he does indeed have a sense of humor. however, i don't think he and BG would appreciate each other's debating styles. maybe I should arrange this just to see...

It would be cute to see "SH" lopsidedly trounce "BG".Don't bring him around here though if he's getting big headed about his relative fame.I will smack his ass back down to earth. Much as I respect the guy.

[vbnautilus]

Spademan, on Monday, June 29th, 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

It would be cute to see "SH" lopsidedly trounce "BG".Don't bring him around here though if he's getting big headed about his relative fame.I will smack his ass back down to earth. Much as I respect the guy.

I think the only sense in which he is big-headed is the literal one. One time I was deep in an MTT and some guy on stars had his face as an avatar. Freaked me out.

[Spademan]

vbnautilus, on Monday, June 29th, 2009, 9:31 PM, said:

I think the only sense in which he is big-headed is the literal one. One time I was deep in an MTT and some guy on stars had his face as an avatar. Freaked me out.

Heh.Looks a bit like Ben Stiller I think.

[vbnautilus]

Spademan, on Monday, June 29th, 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

Heh.Looks a bit like Ben Stiller I think.

YES. the two of them are partially fused as a concept in my mind.

[brvheart]

Spademan, on Monday, June 29th, 2009, 9:06 PM, said:

lol

You have yet to make a single point. I'm not being condescending. I've always liked you Spade, but if you're just looking to hurl insults and not have meaningful discussion, then let me know, so I can move along.

Spademan, on Monday, June 29th, 2009, 9:08 PM, said:

Harris can be kind of funny.

Sam is right. We should laugh at an 'Elvis is alive' believer. The problem with the analogy is that Elvis never claimed to be God. Elvis wasn't a character in a book written 4,000 to 2,000 years old that is completely unchanged, proven by the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Remember that your dislike of God's personality doesn't disprove the Bible's claims. What I am asking for is a list of claims the Bible makes about the natural world that is incorrect. I would prefer your own work also, rather than a cut and paste. It's very important to note here also, that in the world of the Bible, God is involved. So saying something stupid like Jonah wasn't swallowed by a fish, because he would have died, doesn't work. Miracles constantly happen when God is around. That should not be confused with the fact that the Koran claims that the Earth is flat, and has an edge... that would be an excellent example of the Bible being incorrect about the natural world. Find anything like that, and the Bible will be easy to dismiss.

[vbnautilus]

brvheart, on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

Sam is right. We should laugh at an 'Elvis is alive' believer. The problem with the analogy is that Elvis never claimed to be God.

That's not the analogy. The analogy is that they are both absurd beliefs unsupported by evidence. ( p.s. did jesus even claim to be god? )

Quote

Remember that your dislike of God's personality doesn't disprove the Bible's claims. What I am asking for is a list of claims the Bible makes about the natural world that is incorrect. I would prefer your own work also, rather than a cut and paste.

Burden of proof is on you. If you want to claim that something in the bible is true, provide sufficient corroborating evidence. We can't go around "disproving" everything that was ever written by anyone in the course of human history. Remember, you are proposing some pretty outlandish claims (a guy walked on water, came back to life, etc.) and your only evidence is that it was written down.

Quote

It's very important to note here also, that in the world of the Bible, God is involved. So saying something stupid like Jonah wasn't swallowed by a fish, because he would have died, doesn't work. Miracles constantly happen when God is around.

This is begging the question.

[brvheart]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

That's not the analogy. The analogy is that they are both absurd beliefs unsupported by evidence. ( p.s. did jesus even claim to be god? )

He did.

Quote

Burden of proof is on you. If you want to claim that something in the bible is true, provide sufficient corroborating evidence. We can't go around "disproving" everything that was ever written by anyone in the course of human history. Remember, you are proposing some pretty outlandish claims (a guy walked on water, came back to life, etc.) and your only evidence is that it was written down.

Not if I'm right it's not. And if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter.Also, I totally agree that miracles are outlandish, that's why in II Timothy that it says that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. If it's not inerrant, then it's not the word of God. I'm not asking you to believe every story, I'm asking you to show a false claim, outside of the power of God, that the Bible makes. If you find one, then the entire Bible is worthless. If you don't want the burden of proof, then don't bother... it won't matter to either of us in this debate. It will matter to me personally however, since my desire is that you see the truth and come into a personal relationship with Christ.

[vbnautilus]

brvheart, on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

He did.

By the way, if Elvis had claimed to be god would that make believing him to be alive any less absurd?

Quote

Not if I'm right it's not. And if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter.

oh boy. The issue we are dealing with is whether or not you are right.

Quote

Also, I totally agree that miracles are outlandish, that's why in II Timothy that it says that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. If it's not inerrant, then it's not the word of God. I'm not asking you to believe every story, I'm asking you to show a false claim, outside of the power of God, that the Bible makes. If you find one, then the entire Bible is worthless. If you don't want the burden of proof, then don't bother... it won't matter to either of us in this debate.

It's not about wanting the burden of proof or not wanting it. It's a question of where it actually lies. If I write a book that says that Elvis is god and was reincarnated as Lindsay Lohan will you be required to disprove that? It cannot be our method of truth-finding that we automatically believe everything we hear until disproven. We can only be successful the other way around. Now as to your actual proposal about finding a false claim, the problem with that adventure is that your standard for "false" is not properly defined. I can and have shown you several claims which are false in relation to evidence we have about the world, or are contradictions in the plain language in which they are stated. But when you can reinterpret any set of words to fit reality we cannot actually make any progress.

[brvheart]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 1:32 PM, said:

By the way, if Elvis had claimed to be god would that make believing him to be alive any less absurd?

As already stated, if packaged with the other mountains of evidence from thousands of years ago, then yes... it would be less absurd.

Quote

<helpful insult deleted>The issue we are dealing with is whether or not you are right.

Not really. The issue is that Spademan is claiming that I am wrong. I didn't start the thread. The burden is on him.

Quote

It's not about wanting the burden of proof or not wanting it. It's a question of where it actually lies. If I write a book that says that Elvis is god and was reincarnated as Lindsay Lohan will you be required to disprove that? It cannot be our method of truth-finding that we automatically believe everything we hear until disproven. We can only be successful the other way around.

I agree with this, but the Bible is not a singular claim. It has 66 books written by 40 authors. These writers come from all walks of life (kings to fishermen) and spans over a period of 1,500 years or more. That is FAR from your 'example' of a of solitary claim by a random person.

Quote

Now as to your actual proposal about finding a false claim, the problem with that adventure is that your standard for "false" is not properly defined. I can and have shown you several claims which are false in relation to evidence we have about the world, or are contradictions in the plain language in which they are stated. But when you can reinterpret any set of words to fit reality we cannot actually make any progress.

I agree that it could get tedious, maybe not possible... but in my experience nearly every single one of your side's claims of falsehood, is as if God doesn't exist or has any effect on the situation. This is circlular and is impossible to argue a side, because in the Biblical world, God is there. God is involved. Crow could come in here and say, "The Bible says the sun stopped in the noon sky and didn't move for 24 hours. Not possible. Bible false." The problem is that for whatever reason he is forgetting that God is involved. Every single other religious text I have read has errors about the natural world that don't include a miracle from God. I have read the Koran, and the Book of Mormon. The Koran claims that the world is flat and that you can go to the edge. The Book of Mormon claims that Joseph Smith's plates were made of solid gold and gives their dimensions. Only problem, supposedly Joseph ran 3 miles carrying 240 pounds of gold while being chased, and then handed them to his mother through the kitchen window. I was in Utah last week, and many people said, "He had supernatural strength." Why then doesn't the Book of Mormon OR the church literature ever give the glory for that 'miracle' to God. (It's because they didn't realize until recently that it would have been impossible. The official church stance is now that the plates were a gold alloy)That is the only thing I'm asking of you guys. If the Bible is so obviously false, just show me one time where it's wrong about the natural world without God being involved. People have been trying for 2,000 years, and I suspect that they will keep trying.

[vbnautilus]

brvheart, on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

Not really. The issue is that Spademan is claiming that I am wrong. I didn't start the thread. The burden is on him.

It wasn't an insult, it was an expression of frustration, because you were again begging the question. More on this below, because it comes up again and seems to be our main point of misunderstanding.

Quote

I agree with this, but the Bible is not a singular claim. It has 66 books written by 40 authors. These writers come from all walks of life (kings to fishermen) and spans over a period of 1,500 years or more. That is FAR from your 'example' of a of solitary claim by a random person.

First of all given the age of these writings all of these issues about the origin of the text are in question. But ignoring that, there are even more books written about UFO sightings, and those claims are just as unsubstantiated. The fact is that writing something down does not constitute good evidence that it happened. If it did, you would not only have to believe the bible, but also the koran, the vedas, and Dianetics.

Quote

I agree that it could get tedious, maybe not possible... but in my experience nearly every single one of your side's claims of falsehood, is as if God doesn't exist or has any effect on the situation. This is circlular and is impossible to argue a side, because in the Biblical world, God is there. God is involved.

This is a good crystallization of what the problem is. What you have here is a logical fallacy. You are using the statement-to-be-proven as a premise in your argument. What you are saying amounts to "Since the bible is true, it must be true". We cannot in good faith examine the text to decide whether or not it is true with the requirement that we must already assume it to be true.

Quote

Crow could come in here and say, "The Bible says the sun stopped in the noon sky and didn't move for 24 hours. Not possible. Bible false." The problem is that for whatever reason he is forgetting that God is involved. Every single other religious text I have read has errors about the natural world that don't include a miracle from God.

You are just unwilling to extend those texts the same liberties you extend to the Bible. If every potential impossibility is explainable by a miracle then there is no possible way anything written in the bible could be accepted to be false by you. Let's say for example I uncover the passage which says "Carbon has an atomic number of 95". You can just say, well maybe it did back then because god temporarily made it that way before changing it! So in contrast to your comments yesterday, I do think you have a problem of unfalsifiability.

Quote

I have read the Koran, and the Book of Mormon. The Koran claims that the world is flat and that you can go to the edge. The Book of Mormon claims that Joseph Smith's plates were made of solid gold and gives their dimensions. Only problem, supposedly Joseph ran 3 miles carrying 240 pounds of gold while being chased, and then handed them to his mother through the kitchen window. I was in Utah last week, and many people said, "He had supernatural strength." Why then doesn't the Book of Mormon OR the church literature ever give the glory for that 'miracle' to God. (It's because they didn't realize until recently that it would have been impossible. The official church stance is now that the plates were a gold alloy)That is the only thing I'm asking of you guys. If the Bible is so obviously false, just show me one time where it's wrong about the natural world without God being involved. People have been trying for 2,000 years, and I suspect that they will keep trying.

If you use "god was involved" to get out of every contradiction you have a get-of-jail-free-card to play whenever you like.

[Mercury69]

This thread title sounds like the name of a Frank Zappa album.

[brvheart]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 2:13 PM, said:

First of all given the age of these writings all of these issues about the origin of the text are in question. But ignoring that, there are even more books written about UFO sightings, and those claims are just as unsubstantiated. The fact is that writing something down does not constitute good evidence that it happened. If it did, you would not only have to believe the bible, but also the koran, the vedas, and Dianetics. This is a good crystallization of what the problem is. What you have here is a logical fallacy. You are using the statement-to-be-proven as a premise in your argument. What you are saying amounts to "Since the bible is true, it must be true". We cannot in good faith examine the text to decide whether or not it is true with the requirement that we must already assume it to be true.

I'm not saying that since the Bible is true, then it must be true. I'm saying that IF the Bible is true, then God is involved. You are saying the same thing. "since God isn't provable, then all of these situations in the Bible are wrong." I'm not asking you to first believe that the Bible is true before examining the text. I'm saying that you should find anywhere in the Bible that makes a false claim about the natural world. (I would except a false atomic number as proof of inaccuracy)

Quote

You are just unwilling to extend those texts the same liberties you extend to the Bible. If every potential impossibility is explainable by a miracle then there is no possible way anything written in the bible could be accepted to be false by you. Let's say for example I uncover the passage which says "Carbon has an atomic number of 95". You can just say, well maybe it did back then because god temporarily made it that way before changing it! So in contrast to your comments yesterday, I do think you have a problem of unfalsifiability. If you use "god was involved" to get out of every contradiction you have a get-of-jail-free-card to play whenever you like.

I agree with all this, except not extend liberties to the Bible. I've never run across a false claim about the natural world in the Bible. (That wasn't EXPLICITLY attributed to God)

[vbnautilus]

Allright then maybe we will have to see the process at work in order to reveal what is going on here. I will start with a couple of contradictions, since those are hard to wriggle out of if they both can't be true. I just picked these out quickly at random; I don't put these forth as particularly good or damning examples, but let's see what you do with them. #1Solomon built a house. Any good house has got to have pillars, so he built some: 1 Kings 7:15 For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece: and a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about.Allright! Nice job Solomon, gotta love the choice of 18 cubit pillars, a man with a sense of style. Oh wait --2 Chronicles 3:15 Also he made before the house two pillars of thirty and five cubits high , and the chapiter that was on the top of each of them was five cubits.Hmm. How high were the pillars? #2I suspect Indiana Jones could answer this next one. The Ark of the Covenant contained Moses's stone tablets, and nothing else. The bible says this twice: 1 Kings 8:9 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.2 Chronicles 5:10 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt.OK we get it, nothing in there except the tablets. But I guess sometimes "nothing" means "and a golden pot and Aaron's rod":Hebrews 9:4 The ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. #3For a change of pace I will throw in an historical inaccuracy. Daniel 5:1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.Daniel 5:2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. Belshazzar was never a king of Babylon, whose history is well known. It should have been Nabonidus who was king at this time, Belshazzar was his son and viceroy, but never became king. Also Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar.

[crowTrobot]

brvheart, on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

II've never run across a false claim about the natural world in the Bible. (That wasn't EXPLICITLY attributed to God)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

[crowTrobot]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

If you use "god was involved" to get out of every contradiction you have a get-of-jail-free-card to play whenever you like.

it's even worse than that, since the implication is god hid evidence of his miracles to make it seem like they didn't happen.

[Spademan]

brvheart, on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 9:22 AM, said:

I've always liked you Spade, but if you're just looking to hurl insults and not have meaningful discussion, then let me know, so I can move along.

The dialogue going on in this thread is exactly why I basically just, as you see it, "hurl insults". It is impossible, I repeat impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who resides in "faith" or "god did it". This is not my first rodeo when it comes to debate or argument concerning religion. I know when things are just going to go the path of "my superstition has a perfect out when it comes to any contradiction or absurdity, (insert magic being here)!I could trudge out every absurdity ever pointed out in your bible (or any other holy book) by "my own work" or the work of others, list them out in chronological order, cite them, annotate them, bring out experts in science and history and logic, philosophers on ethics and being, mathematicians and logical geniuses... and have them each give a dissertation on their respective problems with your (or any other superstitions) staggeringly unreasonable position relating to god or gods... I could do all of this (as some people literally have), and all of it means nothing in the face of "faith" or "god did it". Nothing. This gives solace to many a believer. "Faith is strong indeed, Praise Magic Zombie X". It only reinforces the blind ignorance.This same blind ignorance helps obfuscate from each believer that the same FAITH exists in every superstition. If one's unwavering belief in a thing is any kind of proof, each of them have proof incontrovertable. Contradictory and mutually exclusive each faith may be. So instead of doing this dance and kindly attempting to engage in real debate as vb and crow are wont to do, I make declarative statements of fact wrapped in malicious beauty. To do my part to show that it is ok not to tolerate nonsense out of some sense of warped social deference.

[brvheart]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 2:45 PM, said:

Allright then maybe we will have to see the process at work in order to reveal what is going on here. I will start with a couple of contradictions, since those are hard to wriggle out of if they both can't be true. I just picked these out quickly at random; I don't put these forth as particularly good or damning examples, but let's see what you do with them. #1Solomon built a house. Any good house has got to have pillars, so he built some: 1 Kings 7:15 For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece: and a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about.Allright! Nice job Solomon, gotta love the choice of 18 cubit pillars, a man with a sense of style. Oh wait --2 Chronicles 3:15 Also he made before the house two pillars of thirty and five cubits high , and the chapiter that was on the top of each of them was five cubits.Hmm. How high were the pillars? #2I suspect Indiana Jones could answer this next one. The Ark of the Covenant contained Moses's stone tablets, and nothing else. The bible says this twice: 1 Kings 8:9 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.2 Chronicles 5:10 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt.OK we get it, nothing in there except the tablets. But I guess sometimes "nothing" means "and a golden pot and Aaron's rod":Hebrews 9:4 The ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. #3For a change of pace I will throw in an historical inaccuracy. Daniel 5:1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.Daniel 5:2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. Belshazzar was never a king of Babylon, whose history is well known. It should have been Nabonidus who was king at this time, Belshazzar was his son and viceroy, but never became king. Also Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar.

The first two don't apply to our discussion, but the third one is very good, exactly what I was asking for. Let me read Daniel again and I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Spademan, on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 9:54 PM, said:

The dialogue going on in this thread is exactly why I basically just, as you see it, "hurl insults". It is impossible, I repeat impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who resides in "faith" or "god did it". This is not my first rodeo when it comes to debate or argument concerning religion. I know when things are just going to go the path of "my superstition has a perfect out when it comes to any contradiction or absurdity, (insert magic being here)!I could trudge out every absurdity ever pointed out in your bible (or any other holy book) by "my own work" or the work of others, list them out in chronological order, cite them, annotate them, bring out experts in science and history and logic, philosophers on ethics and being, mathematicians and logical geniuses... and have them each give a dissertation on their respective problems with your (or any other superstitions) staggeringly unreasonable position relating to god or gods... I could do all of this (as some people literally have), and all of it means nothing in the face of "faith" or "god did it". Nothing. This gives solace to many a believer. "Faith is strong indeed, Praise Magic Zombie X". It only reinforces the blind ignorance.This same blind ignorance helps obfuscate from each believer that the same FAITH exists in every superstition. If one's unwavering belief in a thing is any kind of proof, each of them have proof incontrovertable. Contradictory and mutually exclusive each faith may be. So instead of doing this dance and kindly attempting to engage in real debate as vb and crow are wont to do, I make declarative statements of fact wrapped in malicious beauty. To do my part to show that it is ok not to tolerate nonsense out of some sense of warped social deference.

Ok, this is fair. It's important for you to understand that just because something is unprovable doesn't make it untrue or absurd... well maybe still absurd, but definitely not untrue. Also, you won't hear free-pass stuff from me. I'll shoot you a straight answer every time you ask for one.