Let's talk Logic [#721]

[singlecrochet]

You actually call women and children dood and man to their face?  Interesting.

Still, no answer on why my name was changed.  It's just plain rude.

I have no problem with the word human.  I have no problem with word man, for that matter, but it's not part of my username.

[Azdgari]

Let's see I just checked, and there are several people who have not indicated their gender.  Why do I have to?

You don't have to at all.  But in not specifying, you accept the risk that people will mistake your gender.  Cause, meet effect.

The question has still not been answered.  Why was my gender assumed?

Why was my name completely changed?  When talking TO a person do you say, "Hey, him, how are you?"  You were talking TO me and put MAN in my name.  Plus, you can refer to me BY my name, just as others do many times over on this site and in real life human conversations.  Duh.

I have no clue why yoski changed your name in that way.  Thus I have no comment on yoski's actions apart from those I've already made.

Damn, it would be really nice to use a pronoun in there somewhere, I tell ya.

[singlecrochet]

See, I wasn't angry about the gender assumption.  I was genuinely curious because I've been on here long enough to have noticed that happen with others, at least not that I had seen, and I really wanted to know if it was my name (which I find rather funny because I sure hope everyone here knows what crochet is) or if was the WAY I talked or WHAT I said.  That's all.

As for the name change, again, I had not seen that done to anyone else before and I've already said it, so you know where I stand on that one.

Oh well.  Maybe I just won't get an answer on this one.  Not going to ruin my day.  Just leaves me curious.

But, I do find it interesting that for some reason people need to put an unknown person into a gender category.  I hadn't even noticed the little gender symbol by the name before until this conversation had progressed.  Do some on here also assume a person's skin color, or sexual preference, or any number of other irrelevant things?

[Azdgari]

I don't know.  For my part, I simply enjoy being able to use personal pronouns (he, she) when discussing someone.  It's tiresome and clunky to use someone's entire name every time.  Poor style.  If there was a gender-neutral personal pronoun in the English language, I would gladly use it, but since there isn't...

[singlecrochet]

And yet YOU, have not yet indicated your gender.  Interesting.

[singlecrochet]

Okay, what were we talking about, originally here?     I'll be the first to bring this thread back to its original topic.


(Yoski, I'd LOVE to know where CROTCH came from, too.  I didn't know crotches and needle arts were related somehow.  People that I've seen crochet do it with their hands, not their crotch.)

[kevyrat69]

P1: The validity of the Bible has been proven archaeologically, historically, and prophetically (with no major evidence disagreeing).

P1 is categorically false, it used to be that many biblical claims were lauded as having actually occured and infact some early 'archaeology' ran around the middle east 150 years ago claiming to find that very evidence!  However, since that time the science of archaeology has developed to more reflect scientific objectivity and intellectual honesty.  The price that has been paid is the decline of biblical archaeology to a point where it can barely claim any accuracy, far far less then the totality of the entire biblical narrative.  It should be telling that biblical scholars make this admission as well.

You have essentially cited that that does not exist.

P2: The Bible claims that there is a God named Jesus Christ.

P2 is invalid, simply because archaeology ( if we assume P1 was true ) can demonstrate the historicity of people/places/events doesn't actually mean that the more metaphysical claims that that book makes is actually true.  To give you an easy analogy, there is more historicity to the Quran then the bible.  There is more historicity of Mohammad then Jesus.

Why are you not a Muslim using your own standard for what you claim is true?

C: Since the validity of the Bible has been proven, the contents of the Bible are true, meaning that there IS a God named Jesus Christ who created this world and has sovereignty over it.

False, the supernatural claims of C do not follow necessarily P1 or P2.  It would certainly be a fascinating story if it were true and likely reason enough to 'believe', but in actuality it does nothing ( if given the benefit of the doubt that P1 and P2 were true ) in demonstrating conclusively that C is correct.

I feel the bible is a book of evengical poetry of wishful thinking written by evengelests that changed things or made them up into what it is today.  They want us to believe this is true to go ahead and say well we have faith that this happened so we want you to believe it's true.  They have become apologists and have wrote volumes upon volumes trying to explain all the questions that we and anybody else might have.

[Azdgari]

And yet YOU, have not yet indicated your gender.  Interesting.

Indeed, but the difference is, I don't give a crap if someone mistakes my gender.  I would hardly complain if someone did.

[DL]

OP responds via email:

--

Way to side-step the issue.

[Introsis]

Hey OP, you haven't responded to most of the posts here, way to side step? Hypocrite. Please respond to my post on the first page.

[Azdgari]

Indeed.  The OP has been addressed in the first few posts that followed it.  If the one who mailed in the original post can't be bothered to show up, then he or she certainly has no grounds on which to complain about the thread getting off-topic.

OP, if you care so much about the thread going off-topic, then why havn't you participated in it?

[singlecrochet]

And yet YOU, have not yet indicated your gender.  Interesting.

Indeed, but the difference is, I don't give a crap if someone mistakes my gender.  I would hardly complain if someone did.

Like I said, I wasn't complaining, just curious (it's the anthropologist/cultural diversity trainer in me.)  It was the name change that bothered me that's all.  And, I really couldn't believe that people don't know what crochet is.

[Introsis]

And yet YOU, have not yet indicated your gender.  Interesting.

Indeed, but the difference is, I don't give a crap if someone mistakes my gender.  I would hardly complain if someone did.

Like I said, I wasn't complaining, just curious (it's the anthropologist/cultural diversity trainer in me.)  It was the name change that bothered me that's all.  And, I really couldn't believe that people don't know what crochet is.

I think it's funny how far such an insignificant argument got. From all of us, I'm guilty as well, what a waste of text.

[singlecrochet]

So, has the OP not responded at all?  Wow.

Yeah, I want to know how it was concluded by him/her ( ) that the bible is archaelogically, et al, proven to be accurate, correct, etc.

Let's hear it.......

[singlecrochet]

[I think it's funny how far such an insignificant argument got. From all of us, I'm guilty as well, what a waste of text.

Agreed.  But, hey, I got a good laugh out of it!  And hopefully others did at well.  I'm willing to take one for the cause.  Laugh at me all you want.   :

[Introsis]

Sadly chrochet, not many christians that we see here back up their claims. I doubt that they will present a decent argument, even if they do, it will be picked apart easily...

[DL]

OP responds via email:

---

My comments were directed towards you, not a forum of people. I don't have time to individually comment every person that responds to that post. Not to mention, it wouldn't really lead anywhere in most cases. A lot of those people have already made up their minds. They are close minded and stubborn, thinking they know everything when most of them have probably never 1) opened a Bible and checked it out for themselves or 2) researched the topic. I wasn't trying to start a huge debate. I just wanted to dialogue with you. After all, you were the one that claimed to be educated and intelligent. I figured you would be able to take what I say with a grain of salt and reason with me.

So, have you studied the validity of the Bible? It's like no other book. And it's uncontested. Even non-Christian historians and archaeologists affirm its accuracy and reliability.

And did you realize that the Bible is the only book in the history of time that has fulfilled prophecy? That's pretty interesting considering it was written over a 1400 year period with over 40 different authors from over 4 different geographical regions. That's quite the coincidence... or maybe just divine inspiration?

Anyway, it's our own responsibility to be educated. That's the point I was trying to make.

I could recommend some books for you to check out if you like... that is assuming you have an open mind to the subject.

Thanks. Maybe I'll make a video response one of these days and then all your forum friends can get a better idea where I am coming from.

[Ambassador Pony]

P1: The validity of the Bible has been proven archaeologically, historically, and prophetically (with no major evidence disagreeing).

Which of the parts with talking animals have been supported by archaeology, history, and prophesy?

Which of jesus' miracles is confirmed by archaeology, history, and prophesy (outside of the same book they are mentioned in)?

The validity of certain components of the bible, like the names of places, and the dates of certain events (some of which it got wrong too) have been confirmed.

Harry Potter contains many references to the city of London, the city has been confirmed to exist by archaeologists, historians, and even some prophets. Does that mean that Harry Potter and magic exists?

BUMP

You did not address any of these things, you just re-asserted your original statements.

I appreciate the value of the ad hominem you sprinkled in there, very intellectual. 

 

[StPatrick]

So, have you studied the validity of the Bible? It's like no other book. And it's uncontested. Even non-Christian historians and archaeologists affirm its accuracy and reliability.

Wrong: http://geocities.com/paulntobin/sources.html

And did you realize that the Bible is the only book in the history of time that has fulfilled prophecy? That's pretty interesting considering it was written over a 1400 year period with over 40 different authors from over 4 different geographical regions. That's quite the coincidence... or maybe just divine inspiration?

Wrong: http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/therealjesus.htm#Challenge5

Anyway, it's our own responsibility to be educated. That's the point I was trying to make.

Indeed it is.  I highly suggest you do that.

I could recommend some books for you to check out if you like... that is assuming you have an open mind to the subject.

As could I.  Assuming you have an open mind to the subject: The God Delusion by Dawkins and Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman are good reads.

[Deus ex Machina]

A rather less in-your-face approach is contained in Breaking the Spell by Daniel C. Dennett. I haven't read it yet, but my wife has and she rates it highly - higher than The God Delusion.

[Ambassador Pony]

meh. I disagree.

There's wisdom in the message, but Denett isn't a writer.

 

[Onesimus]

meh. I disagree.

There's wisdom in the message, but Denett isn't a writer.

Aw, now you go and tell me... I ordered Consciousness Explained today. 

[GotMooo]

He puts things very clearly though, so it can't be that bad.

[Vital]

So I've read the posts in here and I'm not going to take a shot at the P1, P2, or C cause i see many of you have allready blown holes in it larger then the ones in the bible.

Id like to take a shot at this however.

Your videos are irresponsible and may fool people who don't have a background in philosophy or logic

Well now.  At least the videos have a  disclamer when they assume you have a college eduction.  May fool people?  I just think this is silly.  If these videos "pull people away from god" or cause them to "lose there faith" then they were never really that strong in there "faith" or the whole god thing.  Would belief be a better word then faith?  Irresponsible?  If you want irresponsible go to any church on sunday and look at how many kids there are there.  I'm talking between 3 y/o and 17 y/o.  "people who don't have a background in philosophy or logic"  That's irresponsible.  Forcing a belief on a child?  I think Astreja put it best.

Every time a child is frightened with tales of hellfire, an act of child abuse has been committed by the parent, teacher or religious leader who spoke the words.

Every time.

Without exception.

Don't ever do that to a child -- It is an unforgivable crime against humanity.

We are not talking about a hypothetical eternal punishment that might be inflicted by your hypothetical god.

We are talking about the life-long trauma inflicted upon children by believers who deliberately frighten them with tales of a mythical hell.

If even one child weeps in the night, afraid of being burned for eternity by some vengeful unseen being, that is sufficient cause to banish all such religions from the earth forever.  Frightening a child in this manner is unforgivable, regardless of the motive.

[Introsis]

OP responds via email:

---
 A lot of those people have already made up their minds. They are close minded and stubborn, thinking they know everything when most of them have probably never 1) opened a Bible and checked it out for themselves or 2) researched the topic. I wasn't trying to start a huge debate. I just wanted to dialogue with you. After all, you were the one that claimed to be educated and intelligent. I figured you would be able to take what I say with a grain of salt and reason with me.

This is a broad assumption, and is more appropriately applied to Christians. Most Atheists have thought about it, they have very open minds and try to see from all views. Tell me, have you ever read the Quran? (Koran, whichever) Have you ever read the Tao-te-ching? The Veda? The Analects? Have you yourself opened your mind to the possibility of other religions being correct? (mind Confucianism, not really a religion) We have, which has lead us to abandon following one religion, and search for the answers.

[Freezykow]

Freezy, the expert on what I have faith in. Please explain Freezy, what beliefs I hold in the absence of evidence, or in spite of contradictory evidence?

Which area of knowledge that you have never studied will we begin with? Biology? Mathematics? Literature? 

Well I just know of it's definition. In a sense you and me both have the same faith. By definition faith is belief in something that can not or is not proven. Me and you both have faith that the other is wrong. Though I can't prove God and you can't disprove God. We both have faith on religious matters. Mines in God yours without.

Huh? What are you talking about. Which TV show I saw last night do you want to talk about? Fox news? CNN? Spongebob?

[Freezykow]

No, I don't have FAITH that belief in christianity is based on falsehoods.  I came to that conclusion simply from reading the bible.  No faith required.

Faith is for things one cannot see.  I can SEE the bible and all that is written in it, and it's just a book, with some good stories and some outrageous stuff about a deity that is, well, nasty and confusing, to sum it up shortly.

See above post.

[kevyrat69]

Here Freezycow,

this is from Wikipedia.  I thought it interesting.

Robert Todd Carroll, an advocate of atheism, argues that the word "faith" is usually used to refer to belief in a proposition that is not supported by a perceived majority of evidence. Since many beliefs are in propositions that are supported by a perceived majority of evidence, the claim that all beliefs/knowledge are based on faith is a misconception "or perhaps it is an intentional attempt at disinformation and obscurantism" made by religious apologists:

"There seems to be something profoundly deceptive and misleading about lumping together as acts of faith such things as belief in the Virgin birth and belief in the existence of an external world or in the principle of contradiction. Such a view trivializes religious faith by putting all non-empirical claims in the same category as religious faith. In fact, religious faith should be put in the same category as belief in superstitions, fairy tales, and delusions of all varieties."[10]