The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2013, 09:10 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
//The dust and debris from the creation prevented the light and the source of the light from being imedietly visible on earth//
are you david lee?

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2013, 09:12 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2013 09:17 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(07-07-2013 09:10 AM)Lightvader Wrote:  //The dust and debris from the creation prevented the light and the source of the light from being imedietly visible on earth//
are you david lee?

Of course he's David Lee. When Lee was caught red handed committing plagiarism, he found it convenient to re-assume his old identity.
This psycho is also Mini Gun Fodder. He has no education in this subject. Just "self-study".
He needs to pretend (and tell himself) he actually knows something about this subject.
In fact he knows nothing. As you saw in the other thread, he was totally destroyed, and answered nothing.
So "what to do" ?
Disappear, and change your identity.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2013, 09:15 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
Owh,i thought it was a new guy till i saw the debris and dust comment.
Dont we have a rule against sockpupets?

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2013, 09:18 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(07-07-2013 09:15 AM)Lightvader Wrote:  Owh,i thought it was a new guy till i saw the debris and dust comment.
Dont we have a rule against sockpupets?

Lee couldn't access his The Theist account. No sockpuppetry involved.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2013, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 07-07-2013 09:31 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(07-07-2013 09:18 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(07-07-2013 09:15 AM)Lightvader Wrote:  Owh,i thought it was a new guy till i saw the debris and dust comment.
Dont we have a rule against sockpupets?

Lee couldn't access his The Theist account. No sockpuppetry involved.

He *said* he couldn't. Same spelling errors, same shit about Hebrew verbs as McClellan debunked. Same Jehovah Witness crap.
He is David Lee.
His "biblical education" in both cases comes straight out of the $0.10 Watchtowers.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/...key-talks/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-07-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(07-07-2013 09:08 AM)The Theist Wrote:  Why not make use of a Hebrew / Greek Interlinear Bible, or search online.

I have done so. It's irrelevant - I'm still looking at translations. The same translations, whether the original (which I cannot read - though I do know a bit of Greek) is side-by-side or not.

If the translation literally says "and X said Y", I'm inclined to take it at its word. After all, the whole point of a holy book is that it is true.

"Interpretation" seems to be a way to fit the text to one's present understanding (ie what is "obvious"). There is no indication in the text itself as to which passages are literal and which are metaphorical, or as to which stand alone and which are predicated on some external knowledge.

(07-07-2013 09:08 AM)The Theist Wrote:  But really, I've found a lot of times, it isn't all the translations that are wrong, it's the interpretation. A skeptic will think the Bible is myth, and has talking snakes and donkeys, when it is pretty obvious [citation needed] that that isn't being implied.

Sure, in a case like this, the actual text will say the "she ass SAID" or the "serpent SAID" but it is obvious [citation needed] that this isn't actually the case.

Right.

Angels? Satan? Supernatural events? A-okay.

But a talking animal?

That's just silly...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
07-07-2013, 10:58 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(05-07-2013 08:29 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What was the long-term plan? Sooner or later things are going to be full - immortals can't reproduce forever. And besides, death clearly existed regardless (I'm fairly sure most plants die when you eat them).

Animals and plants were subject to death from the start, only mankind, created in Jehovah God's image, was meant to last forever. What was the long term plan? It's a big place, the universe, perhaps there would be expansion in that area, or, perhaps, it appears, that after a certain period of time we would no longer multiply.

(05-07-2013 08:29 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I fail to see the virtue in moral slavery.

What an interesting remark. Aren't we all in some sense subject to some form of moral slavery, as you put it? Far more virtuous if from a higher source.

Quote:
(04-07-2013 10:36 PM)The Theist Wrote:  Most everything is debatable, potentially subject to the possibility of ambiguity or misrepresentation.

(05-07-2013 08:29 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. So why believe it?

Why believe most anything?

(05-07-2013 08:29 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Bull honkey. The original authors simply didn't know the difference.

I have no doubt of that, the question then becomes why they wrote it that way.

(05-07-2013 08:29 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Twisting it around to avoid that fact is simply intellectual contortionism.

I can't go back and contort what was written thousands of years ago. Even if I could, this explanation is just what I found in my research, and it dates as far back as the 1800's, even then they wouldn't have felt confident in such an alleged intellectual contortionism - after all, what was the opinion of science at that time? How has it changed since then?

(05-07-2013 08:29 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Dividing light from darkness, and defining morning and evening (day and night in the "is there light or not sense") explicitly happens on the first day. It doesn't matter what a 'day' is - just that it's the first one. The creation of light sources is explicitly mentioned as taking place on the fourth day. They are explicitly described and enumerated as first through seventh. What meaning does this have, if not chronological? For if it is chronological, it is contradictory.

You mean the division of light from darkness took place three days before the sources of the light were "created?"

Explaining this to someone who's premise is that the Bible is a silly myth is like trying to explain division and fractions to a kid who thinks that math is pointless and useless.

We can argue the logic / illogical of it infinitude if you don't understand the language. The metaphorical application, if any, won't begin to surface. None of it adds up but to say "its stupid."

You have the Hebrew bara which is complete in verse 1. That's the heavens, including the sun and moon. You have asah later, and you have ohr and maohr with continuous action. You have yohm which can mean any period of time within a narrative.

You have angels watching. You have an evening and a morning. That is still only half a ancient Hebrew day. The division is metaphoric and still doesn't constitute a full day. The evening is when the progress of creation isn't clear to it's observers, the angels who joyfully cried out. The morning is when things within each stage become clear.

(05-07-2013 08:29 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It's a bad translation if it introduces ambiguity and apparent contradiction. That's why the Quran is only officially studied in classical Arabic, notwithstanding its own ridiculous claims.

So how do we fix that? The increasing wealth of available manuscripts, from the poor to the excellent are useless if you already have your mind set. I could throw all kinds of time consuming excursions into these your way, from the higher to the lower criticism and anyone's guess in between, with linguistic, astrological, historical, archaeological and even scientific evidence and your argument of "The Bible is stupid - your interpretation is contortionist" wouldn't even have to change a bit, would it?

(05-07-2013 08:29 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It's pretty obvious. How do you know one account is chronological and one isn't?

The answer, of course, is to attempt to explain away the obvious errors and contradictions in a poorly written fable.

Uh-huh. That your counter argument?

(05-07-2013 08:29 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And this is what it comes down to. Eventually the only justification left for belief is, "I just do". All the obvious flaws in every holy book are, in the end, irrelevant.

There are equally fervent believers in any number of contradictory faiths. They cannot all be true. No doubt each believer thinks her own is the correct one. Ask her why, and - "I just do".

That's not good enough. I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use...

And yet that is exactly what you are doing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2013, 11:08 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
The 1800's thing came straight out of the plagiarized article.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060087
Of course all he does is cut and paste JW stuff.

So many assertions, yet NEVER a real argument about textual context or sources, or reality. In the end he even says he doesn't believe in immortality. So the question really is : "why does ANY of this bullshit matter to him AT ALL, ANYWAY, if in the end it actually make not an iota of difference ?" It's the ultimate in illogical nonsense. If it doesn't matter to him, (and he's NEVER ONCE made an argument why it actually MATTERS AT ALL) then the question is, "why does he even care ?".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2013, 11:36 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(07-07-2013 10:08 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I have done so. It's irrelevant - I'm still looking at translations. The same translations, whether the original (which I cannot read - though I do know a bit of Greek) is side-by-side or not.

Well, you have to consider the opposition, as an atheist, I would imagine. If you were looking up hell in the Hebrew and Greek you would have a better understanding of sheohl and haides, tartarus and Gehenna. If your looking up what the serpent said it isn't going to be much help so you have to compare that contextually.

The entire Bible doesn't go on about a literal serpent speaking to Eve.

(07-07-2013 10:08 AM)cjlr Wrote:  If the translation literally says "and X said Y", I'm inclined to take it at its word. After all, the whole point of a holy book is that it is true.

And you know what the litmus test for that is? Bullshit, right?

There are probably dozens of examples where you are wrong. When Saul goes to the witch of En-dor to summon the spirit of the dead Samuel, when any angel appears to people and is simultaneously referred to as God, Jehovah, an angel or a man, when Satan speaks as a serpent or an angel speaks as a she ass. The Bible is so harmonious throughout that you can compare it with itself and figure this stuff out. You don't have to reduce your thinking to conjecture and speculation entirely.

(07-07-2013 10:08 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "Interpretation" seems to be a way to fit the text to one's present understanding (ie what is "obvious"). There is no indication in the text itself as to which passages are literal and which are metaphorical, or as to which stand alone and which are predicated on some external knowledge.

Take any of the examples I give above, I would advise you consider Saul and Samuel.

(07-07-2013 10:08 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Right.

Angels? Satan? Supernatural events? A-okay.

But a talking animal?

That's just silly...

Yeah. Exactly. Now we get to the really fun part . . . what is an Angel? Satan? Supernatural?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2013, 11:37 AM
RE: The Desparation Of (A)theism Exemplified
(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  Animals and plants were subject to death from the start, only mankind, created in Jehovah God's image, was meant to last forever. What was the long term plan? It's a big place, the universe, perhaps there would be expansion in that area, or, perhaps, it appears, that after a certain period of time we would no longer multiply.

Okay.

(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  What an interesting remark. Aren't we all in some sense subject to some form of moral slavery, as you put it? Far more virtuous if from a higher source.

... no? That only applies if it's externally defined, mandated, and enforced. Having morals does not make one a slave. Cravenly desiring an eternal master makes one a slave.

(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  Why believe most anything?

Because reproducible investigation through multiple approaches indicates a conclusion may be more likely than not? Because there is no external reason to believe one fervently-held but ultimately unverifiable belief over another?

(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  I have no doubt of that, the question then becomes why they wrote it that way.

Um, because they didn't know the difference.

(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  I can't go back and contort what was written thousands of years ago.

You're doing exactly that. Some parts are literal and some parts are not, and you are deciding which is which based on what makes sense to you, now, as a human being in the present day (that's what saying something is "obvious" means).

(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  Even if I could, this explanation is just what I found in my research, and it dates as far back as the 1800's, even then they wouldn't have felt confident in such an alleged intellectual contortionism - after all, what was the opinion of science at that time? How has it changed since then?

Science at the time still required that light come from light sources. If you mean to imply something further you'll have to be more explicit.

(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  You mean the division of light from darkness took place three days before the sources of the light were "created?"

Yes.

(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  Explaining this to someone who's premise is that the Bible is a silly myth is like trying to explain division and fractions to a kid who thinks that math is pointless and useless.

I am asking in good faith how that statement is to be interpreted according to present consensus on the nature of the universe.

(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  We can argue the logic / illogical of it infinitude if you don't understand the language. The metaphorical application, if any, won't begin to surface. None of it adds up but to say "its stupid."

You have the Hebrew bara which is complete in verse 1. That's the heavens, including the sun and moon. You have asah later, and you have ohr and maohr with continuous action. You have yohm which can mean any period of time within a narrative.

In the second account creation is described as taking one "period of time" (apparently that is a better translation than 'day'). In the first account seven periods of time are enumerated. The creation of the heavens and light is the first such. The second through sixth day are enumerated separately. Are you suggesting those "periods of time" are to be considered as taking place within the over-arching 'first' "period of time"? That is just barely plausible, but it is a very odd textual structure, to be sure. Is the order of enumeration not intended to have any relation to the order of occurrence? Again, I suppose that is a possible interpretation, but it is a very unusual way to write something.

(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  You have angels watching. You have an evening and a morning. That is still only half a ancient Hebrew day. The division is metaphoric and still doesn't constitute a full day. The evening is when the progress of creation isn't clear to it's observers, the angels who joyfully cried out. The morning is when things within each stage become clear.

Sure. Are they separate stages, then? Contemporaneous, or not?

(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  So how do we fix that? The increasing wealth of available manuscripts, from the poor to the excellent are useless if you already have your mind set. I could throw all kinds of time consuming excursions into these your way, from the higher to the lower criticism and anyone's guess in between, with linguistic, astrological, historical, archaeological and even scientific evidence and your argument of "The Bible is stupid - your interpretation is contortionist" wouldn't even have to change a bit, would it?

An inaccurate or misleading translation is a bad translation. Do you agree or not?

I do happen to believe the Bible is a compilation of mythology. I have no reason to believe otherwise. What reason do you have to do so?

(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  Uh-huh. That your counter argument?

Yes. It's rather simple. You are using knowledge unavailable to the authors to decide what they must have meant.

(07-07-2013 10:58 AM)The Theist Wrote:  And yet that is exactly what you are doing.

Projection - it's not just for maths anymore!

No. I gave you explicit and clear reasons why I do not give credence to one particular mythology - namely, that there is equal evidence and apologia for several others. They are mutually contradictory. Therefore I do not profess believe in any of them (notwithstanding the fact that the evidence itself is mostly worthless!).

You cannot prove what you believe. Neither can the most devout Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Shintoist, or Neopagan. Until such a time as one of you can, through externally verifiable means, I will continue to live in the real world.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: