Author Topic: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!  (Read 8677 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #203 on: January 09, 2014, 03:53:02 PM »
1) I really think the flat earth guys must be akin to the spaghetti monster guys. It's gotta be a joke. Even  so  these conspiracy types have never been to space. How can they KNOW they believe a lie?

2) stabbed in the lung, beaten to near death, hung on a cross. and survived with no medical attention. You still have the ascension to account for. Also witnessed by the apostles.

3) Can someone provide evidence for this 2 day comma thing? And botched crucifictions too. It sounds like speculation to me.

1) It is always easier to see other people's mistakes than your own. Other people can see that your ideas and religion are a joke more easily than you can.

2) You really don't want to move on to the ascension as evidence do you? It is such an obvious literary device based on biblical cosmology. You can modernise it if you want to, by saying that Jesus was beamed up to a UFO. Some people say that. No doubt you think they are joking.

3) You are setting up a mental block against ideas, which you don't like. Be more aware of your own emotional reasons and motives for your beliefs. I think you implied earlier that you had been in dangerous situations where you had to kill people. I totally understand why military people have a psychological need to lessen the impact of their situation through religion and through the belief that there is more than just this life.

We are not quite ready for the ascension yet. I suppose we will get there though. If you want to start preparing a supported case though That may be nice.
 I've set up a mental block against unsupported story telling... This much is true... Why do I have to prove my ideas while you all get to make stuff up with no support?
I guess what my question would really be how do you KNOW these things??
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2145
  • Darwins +389/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #204 on: January 09, 2014, 04:19:42 PM »
We are not quite ready for the ascension yet. I suppose we will get there though. If you want to start preparing a supported case though That may be nice.
 I've set up a mental block against unsupported story telling... This much is true... Why do I have to prove my ideas while you all get to make stuff up with no support?
I guess what my question would really be how do you KNOW these things??
I'm not sure what claims you're referring to, but let's just say I don't know these things, or am just wrong about these things.

Why would that change the fact that you still have the burden of proof for your claims?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #205 on: January 09, 2014, 09:16:48 PM »
We are not quite ready for the ascension yet. I suppose we will get there though. If you want to start preparing a supported case though That may be nice.
 I've set up a mental block against unsupported story telling... This much is true... Why do I have to prove my ideas while you all get to make stuff up with no support?
I guess what my question would really be how do you KNOW these things??
I'm not sure what claims you're referring to, but let's just say I don't know these things, or am just wrong about these things.

Why would that change the fact that you still have the burden of proof for your claims?

someone else did the work. Do I need to dig deeper to find the actual documents?

http://knowwhatyoubelieve.com/believe/evidence/external_evidence_test.htm

I'm still waiting for something that supports your own claims. Making a claim creates the burden of proof. I've been doing my part. What of your claims?
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2145
  • Darwins +389/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #206 on: January 09, 2014, 11:13:47 PM »
someone else did the work. Do I need to dig deeper to find the actual documents?

http://knowwhatyoubelieve.com/believe/evidence/external_evidence_test.htm

I'm still waiting for something that supports your own claims. Making a claim creates the burden of proof. I've been doing my part. What of your claims?
Seeing as how I didn't make any claim at all, I think we can both agree that I have no burden of proof.  I was merely clarifying the fact that, since you are making claims, you do indeed have the burden of proof.

I find it weird that you simultaneously say that you've "been doing your part" and asking:

Why do I have to prove my ideas while you all get to make stuff up with no support?

By all means continue calling others out if they make a claim that you feel needs to be better substantiated.  That's fine.  For example, you had asked for someone to provide evidence for 'this 2 day coma thing'.  Mrjason was kind enough to provide some evidence that 2 day comas are occurrences that are known to happen.  I doubt anyone would be able to produce any evidence that Jesus specifically suffered from a 2 day coma, but it is something that is known to occur, so it goes into the category of 'reasonable realm of possibility'.

A man dying and coming back to life is something that is not an occurrence known to happen, and in fact there is evidence to suggest that dead people do not resurrect.  That you claim that a man in the distant past did indeed rise from the dead is rather extraordinary, so that specific claim needs a little more than anecdotal stories in an old book to back that claim up before it becomes remotely believable.

If I handed you a book that had 37 eyewitness signatures on the front of it attesting to the authenticity of someone translating old golden tablets by poking his head into a hat, and that these translations were the word of god, wouldn't you need just a *tad* more evidence before you believed that?

Again, if you feel someone makes a claim that needs to be better substantiated, go ahead and ask.  Just don't think that claim that 'some dudes back in the day could sometimes f**k up crucifixions' requires the same level of evidence as 'the son of the all-powerful master of the universe died and was resurrected to pay the price for your sins'.  You'll either end up believing all sorts of kooky stuff (god's gonna be pissed if you drink coffee), or you'll drive yourself insane deriving proof that you hitting the 'i' key on your keyboard will produce an 'i' on the monitor you're looking at right now.

Perhaps some here are 'making stuff up', but they're making up believable stuff (i.e. perhaps Jesus was in a coma for 2 days).  Perhaps you are 'making stuff up', but you're making up rather unbelievable stuff (i.e. the lord and master of the universe magicked his son into human form on Earth 2000+ years ago in order to suffer and die, so that he could be subsequently resurrected to cleanse mankind of sin).  Both sides have the burden of proof, but the further detached from reality the claim is, the further you need to go to provide evidence for it.  And stories from an old-a** book simply are not going to cut it.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #207 on: January 09, 2014, 11:27:15 PM »
If I was to say that I have a dog at my house. People having dogs in thier house is a common occurance, so most people would accept it, but clearly you would not. You would demand proof.

If there was a dusty old book from 2,000 years ago that claimed that there was a purple pony that the equivelant of a John Smith rode into town one day, would you believe it? Considering that you believe something even more outlandish, I'm guessing you would.

I think you have your priorieties backwards.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #208 on: January 10, 2014, 10:18:38 AM »
If I was to say that I have a dog at my house. People having dogs in thier house is a common occurance, so most people would accept it, but clearly you would not. You would demand proof.

If there was a dusty old book from 2,000 years ago that claimed that there was a purple pony that the equivelant of a John Smith rode into town one day, would you believe it? Considering that you believe something even more outlandish, I'm guessing you would.

I think you have your priorieties backwards.

Mormonism was actually something that required very fine study. Is the story at face value believable? Sure is. Do the 8 EYE witnesses do a lot to substantiate the claim? I do think it so. Note: Not 37 I would  have to check my copy but it's 2 Categories of people no more than 12 in total, I believe. However when you study the 3 Separate and different  visions of John smith given by Smith himself. It becomes doubtful. Also "witnesses" later came forward and said they never saw such things. If one admits the truth the testimony of the other 7 becomes questionable.

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study. What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have. If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have. (we are on the topic of the apostles) If you make the counter claim then I would expect you can support the counter claim

For example.. You claim you have a dog. Lets say my claim is you have no dog. If I have a picture of your back yard and see no evidence of a dog being present, you would need to support your claim as I have supported mine. Perhaps a picture of you with your dog would support your claim? Going deeper still, If I just didn't want to believe you own a dog I may claim something like that's the neighbors dog. Whatever my counter claim shouldn't there be some evidence to support it? That's all I'm asking support your counter claim.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3896
  • Darwins +259/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #209 on: January 10, 2014, 10:49:36 AM »

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study. What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have. If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have.

So how do you treat the Iliad? Do you apply the same standards?
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #210 on: January 10, 2014, 11:37:11 AM »
harbinger, eyewitnesses are not particularly reliable as a source of testimony.  It's been shown time and again that an eyewitness's memory can and does change based on what they believe to be true.  This article examines just how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be, especially the last section.  I especially liked the following quote, from Dr. Gary Wells, a member of a panel commissioned by the Department of Justice to establish guidelines of eyewitness testimony:  "Like trace evidence, eyewitness evidence can be contaminated, lost, destroyed or otherwise made to produce results that can lead to an incorrect reconstruction of the crime."

There's also the fact that simple changes in how a question is phrased to an eyewitness can change their answers, as reported in this article.  Think about it - simply changing the verb used can cause people to report different things.  There's an even more disturbing point on the second page - if you show people series of pictures while telling them a story about a crime (with a suspect and several innocent characters), and then show them a picture of one of the innocents plus three unrelated people several days later, 60% of them will misidentify the innocent as the suspect, and another 16% will pick one of the unrelated people as the suspect.  That's over 75% - three out of four.

Worse, after watching a mock crime and then being shown a police lineup that doesn't include the actual perpetrator, 33% of people will pick someone anyway - and that goes up to 78% if the police express confidence that they have the perpetrator in the lineup.

And on top of that, eyewitnesses who discuss their recollections with each other will tend to conform their memories to each other - even if that changes their recollections from what actually happened.  This article's section on reconstructive memory touches on that - people who all heard a story remembered it slightly differently, and as they were allowed to recount and discuss it with each other, they changed the stories, usually by simplifying or omitting details.

So, no, having eyewitnesses to something who all claim to remember it the same way is pure hogwash.  So those eight eyewitnesses to John Smith, the founder of Mormonism, actually reduce the likelihood that things happened the way they claimed.  Most likely, they all talked about it afterward (and with John Smith, to boot), and ultimately talked themselves into believing that something miraculous had happened.

Offline xyzzy

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • "Nothing happens"
    • xyzzy
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #211 on: January 10, 2014, 12:30:38 PM »
harbinger, eyewitnesses are not particularly reliable as a source of testimony.  It's been shown time and again that an eyewitness's memory can and does change based on what they believe to be true. 
Oh my gosh, yes.

harbinger, jamiehlers point really needs pressing home. In the real world people's lives and liberty can be irreversibly altered through misidentification, false-memories, and a whole slew of associated issues. That this can happen as a result of the actions of good, honest, truly well-meaning people, ought to give you cause for concern.

In your case, you're basing some other form of life-or-death decision on a process that we know can be so prone to error that sometimes even no evidence might be preferable to incorrect, although well-intentioned, eyewitness testimony.

All of this, and we're still not touching the question of if such testimony is real or manufactured in the first place.

I won't quote from it so as not to detract from the excellent post above. But please read the following from the American Bar Association. If they are concerned about it, and it's a fundamental part of American jurisprudence, then so too should you.

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 12:36:44 PM by xyzzy »
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman
You are in a maze of twisty little religions, all alike -- xyzzy

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2577
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #212 on: January 10, 2014, 12:43:53 PM »
Mormonism was actually something that required very fine study. Is the story at face value believable? Sure is. Do the 8 EYE witnesses do a lot to substantiate the claim? I do think it so. Note: Not 37 I would  have to check my copy but it's 2 Categories of people no more than 12 in total, I believe. However when you study the 3 Separate and different  visions of John smith given by Smith himself. It becomes doubtful. Also "witnesses" later came forward and said they never saw such things. If one admits the truth the testimony of the other 7 becomes questionable.

So some of the witnesses retracted their statements later did they? We no doubt know about it as in the days of Joseph Smith, there was a lively press who reported everything going to the populace. The problem with it is that it is quite possible that the same things happened at the time of Jesus but that because of any significant media no one managed to report and save the details. Thus the church could go its merry way and ignore those those who spoke against it.

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study. [/quote]
 And how does in depth study help? Outlandish claims as outlandish claims studied or not studied. The bible presents these outlandish claims, offers nothing more to back them up than Joseph Smith and his witnesses but you believe one but not the other. Why is that?

A religion like Mormonism can easily  demonstrate errors that kill itself - like telling us the the Native Americans are really Jews who crossed in 600BCE when DNA testing shows they came over from Russia 13,000 years ago. We have ofund this stuff out recently. It is quite likely that if we have access to the early church we might also have found things that would have shown thier religion was false, just like the witnesses.

Quote
What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have. If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have. (we are on the topic of the apostles) If you make the counter claim then I would expect you can support the counter claim

Many people here are ex-Christians and are actually quite knowledgeable about the bible and Christian doctrines.

Quote
For example.. You claim you have a dog. Lets say my claim is you have no dog. If I have a picture of your back yard and see no evidence of a dog being present, you would need to support your claim as I have supported mine. Perhaps a picture of you with your dog would support your claim? Going deeper still, If I just didn't want to believe you own a dog I may claim something like that's the neighbors dog. Whatever my counter claim shouldn't there be some evidence to support it? That's all I'm asking support your counter claim.

Perfect example with the dog, Harbinger. We could use pictures, we might use a vets bill or even a certificate of vaccination to show that the dog existed and was real as claimed. Yet when it comes to god its, 'mysterious' and so forth. That's the problem with claims about god. If there really was a god who created everything and who loves and cares for his creatures it is impossible to think that he would be so unwilling to give us the evidence of this.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #213 on: January 10, 2014, 04:02:14 PM »

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study. What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have. If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have.

So how do you treat the Iliad? Do you apply the same standards?

I love that story. I believe there could possibly SOME truth to it although some is rather wild.

I'll ask a question concerning this literary work. Do you believe this story is handed down just the way Homer wrote it. Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the 2500 years or so? Also what if any proof do you have of your position?
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #214 on: January 10, 2014, 05:04:55 PM »
I'll tell you what each and every one of you are good at... Misdirection...
claim: (obviously false) the moon is made of cheese.
I submit item x as my evidence.

Counter claim: the moon is not made of cheese I submit my laughter and further more there are lots of rocks in space. and as proof of rocks I offer item x...

At least you support your misdirection though.
I did feel the liberty to pull a quote from the link Provided:
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html

...imprisoned in Texas for a 1979 rape and robbery he did not commit, largely due to a SINGLE eyewitness identification.
Violence, stress, and the presence of a weapon during an incident actually weaken
memory. Racial differences between the witness and the suspect can impair identifications.
Unconscious transference, or confusing someone seen in one place with someone seen in another place, is common. Identification can also be impaired by how long the witness is exposed to the suspect, the delay between the incident and the identification, and post-event information, such as feedback from the police or other witnesses.

This is all VICTIM eyewitness testimony. I guess if The apostles were victims, or if the historians were victims maybe you would have something. Even then the rape victim knows she was raped. Just uncertain of the details up to and including the criminal. Jesus was a close friend in the least. I think The 12 eyewitnesses knew who was on the cross. They also knew who he was when he returned.



who will be the first to quote me as saying the moon is made of cheese? who is willing to admit the thought crossed their mind? I know it crossed mine.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2145
  • Darwins +389/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #215 on: January 10, 2014, 05:09:25 PM »

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study. What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have. If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have.

So how do you treat the Iliad? Do you apply the same standards?

I love that story. I believe there could possibly SOME truth to it although some is rather wild.

I'll ask a question concerning this literary work. Do you believe this story is handed down just the way Homer wrote it. Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the 2500 years or so? Also what if any proof do you have of your position?
Hatter23's position of...

This is the second time that you've asked someone to 'back their claim' when they didn't make a claim.  I know that 'turning someone's argument against them' is a very useful and effective tactic, but you've got to do it right.  For example:

I love that story.  I believe there could possibly be SOME truth to it, although some is rather wild.

I'll ask a question concerning this literary work.  Do you believe this story is handed down just the way the biblical authors wrote it?  Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the last 2500 years or so?  Also, what, if any, proof do you have of your position that god exists and the bible is his word?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #216 on: January 10, 2014, 05:19:52 PM »



[1].

Second, considering that people have survived firing squads, hangings, electrocution, and even being impaled...
 1. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080528084041AA6Znch

I don't know how I glossed over this... The link you provided was yahoo answers "has anyone ever survived a roman crucifixion?" best answer 6 yrs ago was "not really"

what I'm more surprised by, I glossed over impalement... a large shaft inserted anally until it comes out of the victim's mouth... You really think people survive that?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 05:32:46 PM by harbinger77 »
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #217 on: January 10, 2014, 05:40:29 PM »

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study. What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have. If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have.

So how do you treat the Iliad? Do you apply the same standards?

I love that story. I believe there could possibly SOME truth to it although some is rather wild.

I'll ask a question concerning this literary work. Do you believe this story is handed down just the way Homer wrote it. Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the 2500 years or so? Also what if any proof do you have of your position?
Hatter23's position of...

This is the second time that you've asked someone to 'back their claim' when they didn't make a claim.  I know that 'turning someone's argument against them' is a very useful and effective tactic, but you've got to do it right.  For example:

I love that story.  I believe there could possibly be SOME truth to it, although some is rather wild.

I'll ask a question concerning this literary work.  Do you believe this story is handed down just the way the biblical authors wrote it?  Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the last 2500 years or so?  Also, what, if any, proof do you have of your position that god exists and the bible is his word?

I most certainly do plan to answer the question you have turned back on me. However, could you allow the first question to be answered... first?
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #218 on: January 10, 2014, 06:19:36 PM »
Mormonism was actually something that required very fine study.

If you say so...  :?

Is the story at face value believable? Sure is.

Clearly you do not live in the the same USA I do, if you live in the USA. I thought that's where you're from, but with a whole world out there... I could be wrong.

Do the 8 EYE witnesses do a lot to substantiate the claim? I do think it so. Note: Not 37 I would  have to check my copy but it's 2 Categories of people no more than 12 in total, I believe.

Have you ever heard of someone being paid to endorse something? Just because some actor may say that [brand][something] is better than every other [different brand][something] does that necessarialy make it so? Maybe they were in a room where someone was cooking off Halluccinagens, err "incense" and were primed to see whatever JS wanted them to? Who knows? Point is, people will say anything, if the price is right, or under the influence of something.

However when you study the 3 Separate and different  visions of John smith given by Smith himself. It becomes doubtful. Also "witnesses" later came forward and said they never saw such things. If one admits the truth the testimony of the other 7 becomes questionable.


You just stated that 8 EYE witnesses do a lot to substantiate a claim and here you acknowledge, that it could all be made up! Mormanism isn't the only religion where people were making stuff up and trying to get other people to believe thier crap.

Are claims in the Bible outlandish and hard to believe. Yes I agree. That's why it requires in depth study.


Been there, done that. Read the entire, Bible I have. Did you know in Aramaic there is no 'juh' or 'jee' sounds associated to any 'letter?' Each and every name in the bible that starts with 'J' is certainly not as it seems. 

  What bothers me is people who have done no study. Yet speak as though they have.


Yeshua - 'God is salvation' If 'Jesus' really lived, this would have been his name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_%28name%29 But any Greek would know, only a manly man would have an 'S' or 'N' at the end of thier name. Jesus is derived from Iesoûs which is greek for 'Hail Zues' http://www.hiddenbible.com/jesuszeus/jesuszeus.html


If I claim these things are true and offer evidence they are as I have. (we are on the topic of the apostles) If you make the counter claim then I would expect you can support the counter claim

Yet, you claim that you are saved and cannot provide proof, other than you 'feel' it?

For example.. You claim you have a dog. Lets say my claim is you have no dog. If I have a picture of your back yard and see no evidence of a dog being present, you would need to support your claim as I have supported mine.

It's an indoor dog.

Perhaps a picture of you with your dog would support your claim? Going deeper still, If I just didn't want to believe you own a dog I may claim something like that's the neighbors dog.


Of course, no matter how much evidence I can give you. If you don't want to believe it, you're not going to.

Whatever my counter claim shouldn't there be some evidence to support it? That's all I'm asking support your counter claim.


a) If I propose that I have a dog, you don't have to prove I do not have one. The burden of proof is upon me. You can accept that people having dogs is common enough that you do not require proof. However, should you decide that you do need proof, it is upon me to show evidence.

b) If I were to propose that I have a purple pony. Purple ponies are not common, or even rare, so I would expect that you demand proof before you believe my claim. If you were to believe it outright I would think of you as gullible. Would you need to 'prove' that the purple pony does not exist? No, of course not. It a futile endevour. You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. There could be purple ponies on another planet that we have not discovered. So, it would be upon me, to prove it to you, that I have a purple pony.

So therefore, I would be simply supporting my own claim. It is not a "counter claim." I propose a claim, then I support if asked for evidence. No countering anything. If there was a counter, it would be from you, but since it is my claim, I'd have to provide the evidece to convince you. You countering my claim about a purple pony is as futile as countering that I have coins in my pocket, or that I have a dog. You cannot prove to me that I do not have a dog, if I state that I do. I will always find a way that I can have a dog that beats your 'evidence/proof.'

If I cannot provide evidence that I have a dog, then if I'm intellecually honest with myself, I have to determine 'why' I cannot provide proof. Maybe I just have an overactive imagination and just don't want to admit that I have an imaginary friend. Or, I find someone that can take a picture of my dog and I.  Maybe I just made it all up, just to make a point?

Edit: forums turned the greek e into a ?.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 06:23:08 PM by Ivellios »

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2145
  • Darwins +389/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #219 on: January 10, 2014, 06:49:32 PM »
I most certainly do plan to answer the question you have turned back on me. However, could you allow the first question to be answered... first?
Which question exactly are you talking about?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #220 on: January 10, 2014, 07:58:46 PM »
I most certainly do plan to answer the question you have turned back on me. However, could you allow the first question to be answered... first?
Which question exactly are you talking about?
Quote from: harbinger77
I'll ask a question concerning this literary work. Do you believe this story is handed down just the way
Homer wrote it. Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the 2500 years or so? Also what if any
proof do you have of your position?

that one
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1478
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #221 on: January 10, 2014, 08:38:37 PM »
I most certainly do plan to answer the question you have turned back on me. However, could you allow the first question to be answered... first?
Which question exactly are you talking about?
Quote from: harbinger77
I'll ask a question concerning this literary work. Do you believe this story is handed down just the way
Homer wrote it. Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the 2500 years or so? Also what if any
proof do you have of your position?

that one

The poems which are known under the name of Homer were never the products of a single author. They are oral tradition. The standard text was written later.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 08:40:55 PM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3896
  • Darwins +259/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #222 on: January 11, 2014, 03:35:30 AM »
I most certainly do plan to answer the question you have turned back on me. However, could you allow the first question to be answered... first?
Which question exactly are you talking about?
Quote from: harbinger77
I'll ask a question concerning this literary work. Do you believe this story is handed down just the way
Homer wrote it. Or was there undoubtedly changes made over the 2500 years or so? Also what if any
proof do you have of your position?

that one

The poems which are known under the name of Homer were never the products of a single author. They are oral tradition. The standard text was written later.

You mean not dissimilar to other known works of roughly the same age.  Yes H77, at the very least the translations between languages as well as the Vulgate versus the Ambrosian versions.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #223 on: January 11, 2014, 12:10:21 PM »
The original question was rather I hold the iliad to the same standard.
 "same standard" is the point. IF you hold that the iliad is true to it's text as passed down since it was penned, I would assume by surviving earliest documents. Then you must by the same standard conclude the same of the Bible based on the same evidence. Even more so. As one is a story and no one denies it. The other, Thought to be the word of God would have been treated with much more care.  So my real question is Do you hold the bible to the same standard by which you judge the text of the iliad?

Closest ancient work - Homer (Iliad) - 643 copies, 500 years between original and copy, internal consistency - 95%

 New Testament - 5,600 copies, less than 100 years between original and copy, internal consistency
- 99.5% In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic
languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110310112754AARjZB2

The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by
critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
Food for thought.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2577
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #224 on: January 11, 2014, 12:28:52 PM »
The original question was rather I hold the Iliad to the same standard.
 "same standard" is the point. IF you hold that the Iliad is true to it's text as passed down since it was penned, I would assume by surviving earliest documents. Then you must by the same standard conclude the same of the Bible based on the same evidence. Even more so. As one is a story and no one denies it. The other, Thought to be the word of God would have been treated with much more care.  So my real question is Do you hold the bible to the same standard by which you judge the text of the Iliad?

I'm glad you said 'thought to be the word of god'. The word 'thought' leads to other things. one of the problems of textual studies is that whilst we may be able to work out just what a document says, we are unable to work out why a person wrote the document or what the author was thinking when they wrote it.  Now although we can read Homer and the NT and we can decide what each says and means, that certainly does not mean we know why the author wrote the text or what it was supposed to be.

There are plenty of books of fiction where the author takes on the first person persona of one of the characters in the story. Reading a book like that hardly tell one anything about the author - only the character can be recovered. We only know that the book is fiction if the book tells us or by looking in what area of the shop or library the book is kept. To be honest I would say I would file both Home and the Bible on the same shelf.

Quote
Closest ancient work - Homer (Iliad) - 643 copies, 500 years between original and copy, internal consistency - 95%

 New Testament - 5,600 copies, less than 100 years between original and copy, internal consistency
- 99.5% In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic
languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110310112754AARjZB2

Are you trying to same might is right? That the book with the largest number of copies is true? I do hope not. Yes, we all know there are a lot of manuscripts of the bible - each church and synagogue had to have copies so of course there were a lot. Mind, I think you'll find that the dating for Homer means that it is very early for the creation of books and thus a fewer number is whta one would expect. It was likely an oral tale for years.

Quote
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by
critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
Food for thought.

Now there is accuracy and accuracy isn't there? We can be sure that the texts were fairly well copied but that just means that late copies read much the same as early one. One the other hand, when we want to see if the text accurately reflects the history it claims to represent, then that is a different question entirely. Historically there are various problems with the NT texts as well as lack of outside support for the contents. All the major figures in the NT fail to put in an appearance in any contemporaneous documents.

We can mention Peter, Paul. Jesus, the gospel writers (whoever they were) are all known only in the NT texts. To anyone doing history, this sounds very odd. Of course if we are talking about texts that were written well after the events they claim to portray and if they were created to show that some OT prophecies were fulfilled, then that would make sense as, of course, the main characters would have been inventions (like Adam and Eve, Noah and the rest) and so would not appear in and outside source.

The fact is the need to believe has made people blind to the obvious textual and historical problems of these texts so that people would rather defend them that really research them. In fact, I wonder if we gave the NT and the Iliad to a person who had never seen either he would classify them differently - I rather think not.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3896
  • Darwins +259/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #225 on: January 11, 2014, 03:22:49 PM »
  So my real question is Do you hold the bible to the same standard by which you judge the text of the iliad?

Absolutely. They are both ancient tales written long ago. They may, and likely, contain mythologized history. The were/are groups that treated them as core documents that transmitted the values of their civilization and culture. They are therefore of enormous literary value.

However, they have within them fantastical tales of deities and magic. These tales do not correspond with what we observe in our day to day life. Since people are know to hallucinate, lie, and exaggerate, the claims made by each document should be treated with skepticism, particularly if the claim violate known physical laws. Internal consistency is irrelevant if the claims are not consistent with scientific and archeological record.

Furthermore some of the mores and values expressed within these documents do not match modern morality. This should be expected as the people who wrote them were from a different and more primitive culture.

Same standard.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 03:24:45 PM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #226 on: January 11, 2014, 04:07:10 PM »
Quote from: wheels
Historically there are various problems with the NT texts as well as lack of outside support for
the contents. All the major figures in the NT fail to put in an appearance in any contemporaneous
documents.

Your full post seems to both agree and disagree at the same time. My point was the value of the text alone, As I stated.
With that being said, which one historical location, person, or item would you like to start with. Or can we finally stop the misdirection and get back to the historians I have already presented as mentioning not only Jesus, but all 12 of the apostles and the martyrdom of some of these apostles?

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #227 on: January 11, 2014, 04:40:41 PM »
I don't know how I glossed over this... The link you provided was yahoo answers "has anyone ever survived a roman crucifixion?" best answer 6 yrs ago was "not really"
Thus why I didn't actually use it to defend the proposition that people had survived crucifixions.  Though, in fact, they could - provided they were taken down before too much time had passed.  But my point was to show that people can and have survived every method of execution (except when it involves removing the head from the body).  It really depends on the person.  Some people die very quickly from shock, some people hang on for hours or days, and in the latter case, they can survive for a surprisingly long time.  Indeed, it's often lack of food/water that ends up killing them in that case.

Quote from: harbinger77
what I'm more surprised by, I glossed over impalement... a large shaft inserted anally until it comes out of the victim's mouth... You really think people survive that?
Ever hear of impaling someone on a short stake?  Indeed, one of the reasons people sometimes used short stakes for impalement was to lengthen the time it took the victim to die.  If you free someone from a short stake, they could very well survive - thus why impalement victims were guarded until they actually died - and like crucifixion, had extra damage done to them afterwards to make sure they were actually dead.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #228 on: January 11, 2014, 04:59:17 PM »
I'll tell you what each and every one of you are good at... Misdirection...
You might want to stop projecting your own foibles onto other people.  It's more than a little annoying.

Quote from: harbinger77
At least you support your misdirection though.
I did feel the liberty to pull a quote from the link Provided:
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html

...imprisoned in Texas for a 1979 rape and robbery he did not commit, largely due to a SINGLE eyewitness identification.
Violence, stress, and the presence of a weapon during an incident actually weaken
memory. Racial differences between the witness and the suspect can impair identifications.
Unconscious transference, or confusing someone seen in one place with someone seen in another place, is common. Identification can also be impaired by how long the witness is exposed to the suspect, the delay between the incident and the identification, and post-event information, such as feedback from the police or other witnesses.
What, you seriously think that the above are the only ways in which eyewitness testimony can be distorted?  By the way, you might note that they talk about witnesses here - not victims.

Quote from: harbinger77
This is all VICTIM eyewitness testimony. I guess if The apostles were victims, or if the historians were victims maybe you would have something. Even then the rape victim knows she was raped. Just uncertain of the details up to and including the criminal. Jesus was a close friend in the least. I think The 12 eyewitnesses knew who was on the cross. They also knew who he was when he returned.
This is nothing more than an attempt by you at misdirection.  Your suggestion that only victims are uncertain of the details is plainly wrong, as I noted above.  That's not all you got wrong, either; you imply that the twelve apostles were all eyewitnesses to the crucifixion, which is certainly not true.  Judas committed suicide and the other apostles attempted to hide from the authorities.  The likelihood of any of them going to watch the crucifixion would have been practically nonexistent.  Indeed, the only apostle even mentioned as being there was "John the Beloved", who oddly enough isn't mentioned anywhere outside of the Gospel of John[1].  Other than that, there were four women - his mother, his aunt, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.  Who would have been very badly stressed at watching him die and thus would have not been reliable eyewitnesses[2]
 1. Indeed, the way the text was written is very suggestive of someone who desperately wanted to be an apostle but wasn't - thus the repeated references to him being the apostle Jesus loved most.  The whole Gospel of John strikes me more like a self-insert fanfic than anything.
 2. And even more so when they found his tomb empty several days later.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #229 on: January 11, 2014, 09:46:58 PM »
I don't know how I glossed over this... The link you provided was yahoo answers "has anyone ever survived a roman crucifixion?" best answer 6 yrs ago was "not really"
Thus why I didn't actually use it to defend the proposition that people had survived crucifixions.  Though, in fact, they could - provided they were taken down before too much time had passed.  But my point was to show that people can and have survived every method of execution (except when it involves removing the head from the body).  It really depends on the person.  Some people die very quickly from shock, some people hang on for hours or days, and in the latter case, they can survive for a surprisingly long time.  Indeed, it's often lack of food/water that ends up killing them in that case.

Quote from: harbinger77
what I'm more surprised by, I glossed over impalement... a large shaft inserted anally until it comes out of the victim's mouth... You really think people survive that?
Ever hear of impaling someone on a short stake?  Indeed, one of the reasons people sometimes used short stakes for impalement was to lengthen the time it took the victim to die.  If you free someone from a short stake, they could very well survive - thus why impalement victims were guarded until they actually died - and like crucifixion, had extra damage done to them afterwards to make sure they were actually dead.

I guess it all depends on how you are using "survive." A short sharp shaft inserted anally... 
Do you mean wounds heal and this guy lives to ripe old age, or do mean live for a few days eventually killing over from blood loss or infection or  whatever?

Its length is reported to be from 6–15 feet, in one description as "four paces" in length. [21] Reported thickness of wooden stakes ranges from a man's thigh, a man's leg, a man's arm, or thick as the wrist or as thick as a foot at its thickest.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement
 
Survivability does NOT sound likly at all. I for one would rather die than live on with the damage this would cause.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4959
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #230 on: January 11, 2014, 10:34:17 PM »
harbinger, the wiki site itself cites several cases of the impaled surviving for days, while actually impaled[1].  It's well within the realm of possibility that someone who was impaled, then released from it before they died, could actually survive the experience.  Doesn't mean it'd be pleasant, or that they wouldn't end up being disfigured as a result, but impalement wasn't a guaranteed way to kill someone in and of itself.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/339469/Builder-cheats-death-after-metal-bar-impales-him-from-anus-to-chest - a modern-day worker impaled by a metal bar that went out through his chest, and survived the experience, less than six months ago.

Now, I'll grant, he had the aid of modern medicine, but he clearly didn't die instantly, and it's entirely possible that he might have survived as long as they removed the bar without inflicting too much additional damage.  That's why they usually inflicted additional injuries on victims of impalement or crucifixion, because they would otherwise have to leave guards there to make sure someone didn't come along and free the victim.  Yeah, sure, their chances of survival probably weren't all that good, but there have been cases - even in antiquity - where people have been injured far worse and lived through it.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20068_5-absurdly-fatal-injuries-you-wont-believe-people-survived.html - A woman who fell into a frozen creek, stayed there for 80 minutes, her body temperature was down to 56 degrees when they finally got her out, whose heart started beating again three hours later and who survived with essentially no brain damage.  A man who took an industrial drill through the eye and brain, which exited through the top of his skull, who was fully conscious while they unscrewed it, who came out of the whole thing with little more than minor nerve damage.  A man who crash-landed in the Kalahari Desert, with his legs essentially destroyed in the crash, who managed to avoid being killed by wild animals, and who was found the next day (though, his legs are still essentially useless).  There's a couple other cases which are equally amazing, but aren't really about surviving catastrophic injuries, so I'm not going to list them here, but they're just flat out astounding.

My point is, don't ever, ever assume that someone is a goner simply because of a horrific injury.
 1. by following the spine and not penetrate the abdominal cavity

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!
« Reply #231 on: January 12, 2014, 12:30:14 AM »
I think we are talking about impalement as in a pole possibly as large as a mans leg or only a mans wrist being shoved into a persons anal cavity.

I'm not even trying to dispute instant death vs long slow death If that's what you think I mean. I am saying that impalement is not something you walk away from no matter how slow you die, you still die. As for capital punishment, my position is just as we do it today, you are sent to die. If it didn't work the first time, kill 'em again! Either way you still die.

You offer cases of lets call it "horizontal impalement" I don't disagree these are amazing cases. The Human body can take a lot of damage. I've seen it first hand in Iraq. seriously though. I'm still waiting for evidence of ANY crucifixion survival. survival meaning lived to tell grand kids the story. NOT survival as in it took 2-3 days to die. This impalement thing seems less likely to me though.

What ever happened to that 2 day comma comment too? I had a reply for it but I lost the post in the shuffle...
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project