- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Arkansas' new Ten Commandments monument at Capitol destroyed
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:26 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:26 pm to FooManChoo
quote:no historian is picking up the bible and concluding that jesus existed based solely on the bible.
If a person picked up the Bible, for example, and read about Jesus and concluded He existed yet rejected the miracles it says He performed, what other conclusion can you come to
nearly everything you write has this same kind of logical fallacy. you want something to be true, and so you act as if it really is factually true.
3
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:27 pm to MastrShake
quote:
nearly everything you write has this same kind of logical fallacy. you want something to be true, and so you act as if it really is factually true.
Indeed. Foo loves to muddy the waters between factual information and what he/she believes.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:28 pm to DawgfaninCa
Is this being investigated as a hate crime?
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:32 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:thats a really good idea, but i would feel selfish if more people werent able to enjoy it, it deserves to REALLY be seen. the only answer here is to put it on public land at the state capital right next to the 10 commandments monument.
Put it up in your front yard if you think it is an expression of your free speech that it should be put in a place where the public can see it.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:35 pm to Lawyered
quote:do the gay people in your scenario live on public land in front of the state capital?
The people that claim that gay marriage affects no one are the same group that get offended by a momunment that also doesn't affect anyone.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 12:48 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Whatever man. You're more interested in acting like a kid pointing out grammar errors than understanding the point being made.
No, I got it. You're just wrong. It isn't an early form of peer review, either.
quote:I'm right a lot, but I'm also able to admit when I'm wrong. Try it sometime
I try to be correct when I say things.
Try it sometime.
quote:I'm glad you've appointed yourself the validity czar to give you a greater sense of importance around here
I don't really care what you do. Just pointing it out so no one assigns any undeserved validity to this point, or any others you made
quote:Being "factual" in a conversation is meaningless if the "facts" you use do not contribute to said conversation. My brother in-law can spout off events in history like no one's business but he's also autistic and impossible to have a conversation with. You are coming across much like my autistic brother in-law by being very concerned with being "right" at the expense of audience.
Incorrect. I'm being very pointed and factual.
quote:If you keep up with these silly types of responses, I'll put you on the permanent shun list. Apparently the only thing you hate more than being wrong is being ignored.
Indeed, and poorly
quote:You are just nitpicking for the sake of argument. You aren't actually engaging me in thoughtful discussion right now. You are just telling me repeatedly that I'm wrong for using the phrase "early form of peer review" as a linguistic help tool for you and others to better understand my position. In the strictest sense, what they were doing was "peer review". I'm sorry you feel the need to continue to belabor this point. You must be struggling to find other things to argue about.
I'm not entirely concerned with this until you get the basics down. By claiming these others have been through some form of "peer review" you're attempting to assign legitimacy that isn't warranted, whether intentional or not.
At least you've walked back from that. It is interesting to see that you won't fully come off the point, though.
My point was made and if you refuse to acknowledge it, so be it. I won't respond any more to this nonsense as you are obfuscating.
quote:Value is assigned or attributed. I already know that you assign no value to it. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
In that context, it's no more valuable than any other religious text and we have no convincing reason to treat it as anything more than "consistently" recorded mythology.
I'm fine with that outcome.
quote:Value is assigned or attributed. I already know that you assign no value to it. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Sure, but they're valuable nonetheless
quote:Ironically, his conclusions also come down to little more than what he personally believes, in spite of his credentials.
Of course, but that's almost certainly because his views don't correspond to your own. Meaning, this all comes down to little more than what you personally believe.
quote:You don't have to assign importance to them and I don't care about what amount of importance (if any) you do assign.
And, again, I'm completely fine with that outcome. I just won't assign any amount of importance to them.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 1:10 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:It could be argued that Josephus' "wonderful works" that were mentioned about Jesus were about His miracles. He does mention Jesus appearing after the cross, which suggests at least an attestation to the resurrection miracle, even if he didn't believe it himself. If you accept Josephus as a primary external (to the Bible) source for Jesus' existence, you have to accept the possibility that he also affirms some of the miracles, even if you aren't convinced of it.
The answer is simple. There is external information for the existence of Jesus, or at least for the existence of someone that formed the basis for the Christian mythology.
There is zero for any of his miracles. Zero.
Regardless, there is scant mention of Jesus at all outside of the early Church fathers (I doubt you would accept them as reliable, unbiased sources) and two historians (Tacitis is the other one) which MastrShake called into question previously. There's certainly evidence to allow historians to accept the existence of Jesus, but practically everything known about Him is through the New Testament writings and those within the church which attested to His miracles.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 1:16 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:That's true, however the implication is ignorant since it ignores the specific beliefs I hold to. There are many non-religious folks who are dogmatic with their beliefs. Dogma isn't a problem by itself. You have to consider the object of the beliefs, and my beliefs do not allow for terrorism.
I think he's saying that folks like you who dogmatically believe holy texts have been known...on occasion...to violently force their worldview on others
quote:Hitchens is a fool. I've had this discussion before, but people can kill others for any reason and in the name of anything and any one. What you have to consider are the particular beliefs that may lead someone to commit murder. Christianity just doesn't justify such a thing, regardless of what you or Hitchens wants to say about the Crusades, Inquisition, or anything else in history. What Christianity has to offer is sincere and a benefit to the world.
Your casual attitude about this, and nonchalant suggestion that nothing of the sort could ever take place reminds me of this great Christopher Hitchens quote...
“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
Posted on 6/29/17 at 1:25 pm to MastrShake
quote:I gave a for-instance as an example. Historians can come to their own conclusions however they want based on whatever evidence they look at, but as I just explained, it's extremely difficult to separate the existence of Jesus from the claimed miracles of Jesus based on the evidence that exists, as the primary sources for the existence of Jesus refer to the works of Jesus, except for Tacitus, who does mention the crucifixion (supporting that claim in the Bible).
no historian is picking up the bible and concluding that jesus existed based solely on the bible.
quote:Other than my for-instance, do you have other examples of this purported logical fallacy?
nearly everything you write has this same kind of logical fallacy. you want something to be true, and so you act as if it really is factually true
I speak of the object of my faith as if it really is factually true because I believe it to be factually true. My belief doesn't make it factually true, obviously, but I believe it is factually true regardless of your insistence that it isn't.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 1:40 pm to MastrShake
quote:
no historian is picking up the bible and concluding that jesus existed based solely on the bible.
This is like picking up Hunt for Red October and concluding Jack Ryan existed.
It's absurd, logically.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 1:46 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It could be argued that Josephus' "wonderful works" that were mentioned about Jesus were about His miracles. He does mention Jesus appearing after the cross, which suggests at least an attestation to the resurrection miracle, even if he didn't believe it himself. If you accept Josephus as a primary external (to the Bible) source for Jesus' existence, you have to accept the possibility that he also affirms some of the miracles, even if you aren't convinced of it.
What?
No...all you have to do is accept that he is REPORTING what others have said.
Agreed. He is reporting that others told him that it happened. At best...and I'm being super generous here, you're talking about second hand accounts from people with a desire to get the good word out.
And even if it were first hand account, when it comes to miracles, it STILL would be zero evidence. The thing that bothers me the most about this sort of thing is that I assume you to be far more intellectually rigorous and far more interested in facts if it were to come to OTHER claims of the supernatural...right?
LINK
Where is Harris wrong?
Posted on 6/29/17 at 1:53 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
That's true, however the implication is ignorant since it ignores the specific beliefs I hold to. There are many non-religious folks who are dogmatic with their beliefs. Dogma isn't a problem by itself. You have to consider the object of the beliefs, and my beliefs do not allow for terrorism.
Not yet. But they have certainly led you and others to force your version of morality onto their lives, even though they do not hold those same values. the problem of seeming to be ok with theocracy is that, there may actually come a time when the religion in power is NOT your own.
quote:
Hitchens is a fool. I've had this discussion before, but people can kill others for any reason and in the name of anything and any one. What you have to consider are the particular beliefs that may lead someone to commit murder. Christianity just doesn't justify such a thing, regardless of what you or Hitchens wants to say about the Crusades, Inquisition, or anything else in history. What Christianity has to offer is sincere and a benefit to the world.
So...they weren't REALLY doing it in the name of Christ? Not REALLY Christians? No true Scotsman...?
Posted on 6/29/17 at 2:23 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:Yep, he's reporting what others have said. Now a good historian would get more than one source so I'm sure Josephus did more than listen intently to some rumors spreading around the Roman bath house but even if he got the same account from 100 different people, it would all be 2nd hand information considering he wasn't an eye-witness. I find Josephus' account to be reliable but some people have more strict requirements to be met before they believe some Roman Jew from the first century.
What?
No...all you have to do is accept that he is REPORTING what others have said.
Agreed. He is reporting that others told him that it happened. At best...and I'm being super generous here, you're talking about second hand accounts from people with a desire to get the good word out.
quote:What you and others here seem to be ignoring is that the Bible is evidence, just not evidence you want to admit or accept. In a court room, eye-witness testimony can be extremely compelling in a case, and it is definitely accepted as evidence. Unfortunately there is no way to provide you with the kind of evidence you want because it isn't testable, repeatable, or even falsifiable (because it's supernatural and science is inadequate to account for it). Even if a miracle did happen right before your eyes, there's no guarantee you'd even accept it as such. Many people in the Bible witnessed miracles and still did not believe.
And even if it were first hand account, when it comes to miracles, it STILL would be zero evidence. The thing that bothers me the most about this sort of thing is that I assume you to be far more intellectually rigorous and far more interested in facts if it were to come to OTHER claims of the supernatural...right?
quote:His presupposition that the Christian faith is predicated on the miracles of Jesus is wrong. The miracles were a support for the message that Jesus preached, but the miracles weren't an end to themselves. There are examples in the Bible where Jesus performed miracles where some people believed Him to be God and some people did not (as Sam Harris points out that most people do with that Indian Guru).
LINK
Where is Harris wrong?
Posted on 6/29/17 at 2:39 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:1. I don't force my version of morality on to any. I preach a message and leave it up to God to use it to convert others.
Not yet. But they have certainly led you and others to force your version of morality onto their lives, even though they do not hold those same values. the problem of seeming to be ok with theocracy is that, there may actually come a time when the religion in power is NOT your own
2. Lately, Christians have been forced to either give up their morals or give up their businesses. I'd say that a moral code has been forced upon them outside of a theocratic government
3. I am not a theonomist
quote:Oh I'm sure they did what they did in the name of their religion. It's a good way to justification actions when pepole belong to those religions but don't understand what it teaches.
So...they weren't REALLY doing it in the name of Christ? Not REALLY Christians? No true Scotsman...?
Like I said, anyone can do anything in the name of anything or anyone but that doesn't mean "the name" is responsible for the actions. If the government started forced killings of people to lower the population in the name of environmentalism, would environmentalism be evil or even to blame? Nazi scientists performed horrendous experiments on Jews and other inferior breeds of humans, so is science to blame for that? Is science evil? Nope, it's not. You judge the actions by themselves and then look at the beliefs that caused them to act the way they did. There's nothing in the teachings of Christianity that justifies such actions.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 2:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Yep, he's reporting what others have said. Now a good historian would get more than one source so I'm sure Josephus did more than listen intently to some rumors spreading around the Roman bath house but even if he got the same account from 100 different people, it would all be 2nd hand information considering he wasn't an eye-witness. I find Josephus' account to be reliable but some people have more strict requirements to be met before they believe some Roman Jew from the first century.
You're missing the point, either accidentally or on purpose. The issue is the reporting of MIRACLES. With that type of claim comes a standard of evidence FAR HIGHER than merely asserting a guy named such and such lived here and said this and that. We have claims of the supernatural today that are given almost no credence because there is no evidence to back them up. But for some reason we are supposed to take at their word the unsupported claims of miracles 2,000 years ago?
This is only reasonable to you because you want to believe it.
quote:
What you and others here seem to be ignoring is that the Bible is evidence, just not evidence you want to admit or accept.
No, it isn't.
quote:
In a court room, eye-witness testimony can be extremely compelling in a case, and it is definitely accepted as evidence.
Which is terrible given how much we now know about how unreliable eye witness testimony is.
quote:
Unfortunately there is no way to provide you with the kind of evidence you want because it isn't testable, repeatable, or even falsifiable (because it's supernatural and science is inadequate to account for it).
In other words, special pleading to not have to provide the type of evidence all other claims require. Sorry...that's not a card you can play in an honest debate.
quote:
Even if a miracle did happen right before your eyes, there's no guarantee you'd even accept it as such.
Agreed! Now you're thinking! Our brains fool us all the time! If I see or experience something so extraordinary as to break all known laws of physics, you're damned right I'm not going to automatically assume what I saw was real! I'd be a damned fool to do that. That's how you get idiots saying things like, "I know what I saw!!!" No...I'd certainly tell someone what I saw and ask if they saw it too. I'd go and get checked out to see if there was something wrong with me, etc. I'd exhaust all other possibilities before simply thinking a "miracle" happened. To do otherwise is lazy thinking.
Let me ask you...do you believe EVERYTHING someone tells you they saw or experienced? Ghosts, Big Foot, Aliens, etc? Do you simply take their word for it, or do you require more than that if the claim is especially unusual? Now...if you're going to tell me you accept ALL claims at a 100% rate regardless of how unusual they are if someone tells you they "saw" it, then I think we'd be done talking. As I don;t think that's the case, I'm wondering how and why you expect more or less evidence for claims such as those?
quote:
His presupposition that the Christian faith is predicated on the miracles of Jesus is wrong. The miracles were a support for the message that Jesus preached, but the miracles weren't an end to themselves.
Nah...sorry. Without the miracles Jesus is no more than a prophet or a wise man. You're talking the Jefferson Bible type Jesus, and you know full well THAT Jesus does not have an entire faith built around him. Miracle Jesus does.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 3:02 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
1. I don't force my version of morality on to any. I preach a message and leave it up to God to use it to convert others.
I have no interest in going political point by political point here, but I'd be hard pressed to agree with this in principle. While you may not do that personally, I'd quite confident you're ok with it being done politically.
quote:
2. Lately, Christians have been forced to either give up their morals or give up their businesses. I'd say that a moral code has been forced upon them outside of a theocratic government
Eh...no one has to give up their morals. That's a choice. As for the business, with that as a libertarian I'll agree entirely. I find it absurd a business should have to do business with ANYONE for ANY REASON if they don't want to. That being said, I'd like to be the first person to buy a cake at the bakery that does not discriminate against anyone...but more power to those that want to. Happy?
quote:
3. I am not a theonomist
At least that's something.
quote:
It's a good way to justification actions when pepole belong to those religions but don't understand what it teaches.
So...they didn't understand what it teaches? For nearly 1500 Christians did some fairly hair raising bullshite all around the world, and your claim is they did it...but they were all missing the message? Again...this reads like claims from groups like CAIR making excuses for ISIS.
quote:
If the government started forced killings of people to lower the population in the name of environmentalism, would environmentalism be evil or even to blame?
Ugh... that would be a terrible analogy even if you had said Green Peace was doing the killing, as Green Peace is not saying they are getting their views on the UNIVERSE from the creator of it. C'mon, man...
quote:
Nazi scientists performed horrendous experiments on Jews and other inferior breeds of humans, so is science to blame for that?
Are you just terrible at analogies or dishonest? Gosh.
quote:
There's nothing in the teachings of Christianity that justifies such actions.
Don't make me start pulling passage after passage out of the bible to prove this statement wrong. And I don't mean the OT.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 3:07 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:this is actually a bad example because those books tell you A LOT more about the life of Jack Ryan than the bible does about Jesus, and they werent re-written countless times for thousands of years.
This is like picking up Hunt for Red October and concluding Jack Ryan existed. It's absurd, logically.
and also they're way more consistent. there's no chapter where Ryan suddenly has super powers that were never mentioned in the previous chapters.
unlike jesus.
because the letters of Paul and the gospel of Mark were, chronologically, the first books written about him, and neither make any mention of a divine birth, THE ONE AND ONLY THING that makes jesus anything more than a man.
Matthew was written next and he has a few details, but then we get to Luke, and now suddenly things are amazing.
theres a whole new extravagant story all of a sudden, with all new details, AND QUOTES, all evidence that surely this is the son of god and the messiah, all of which the first three who wrote about him somehow forgot to mention.
read them in order and you can watch the polish being applied, each new version is more miraculous than the one before.
but thats not noteworthy in any way, is it?
Posted on 6/29/17 at 3:15 pm to MastrShake
quote:
this is actually a bad example because those books tell you A LOT more about the life of Jack Ryan than the bible does about Jesus, and they werent re-written countless times for thousands of years.
and also they're way more consistent. there's no chapter where Ryan suddenly has super powers that were never mentioned in the previous chapters.
unlike jesus.
So...Jack Ryan is real?
Posted on 6/29/17 at 3:53 pm to FooManChoo
I'm not addressing the rest of your intellectually weak trash, but I will touch on this...
I don't care if you ignore me. In fact, I'd prefer it. Feel free to do so permanently at any time.
I don't require a response from you to continue calling out your bullshite. It might actually make things better, as you don't really add anything useful anyways. That goes for your pals as well.
quote:
Apparently the only thing you hate more than being wrong is being ignored.
I don't care if you ignore me. In fact, I'd prefer it. Feel free to do so permanently at any time.
I don't require a response from you to continue calling out your bullshite. It might actually make things better, as you don't really add anything useful anyways. That goes for your pals as well.
Posted on 6/29/17 at 4:01 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
I have no interest in going political point by political point here, but I'd be hard pressed to agree with this in principle. While you may not do that personally, I'd quite confident you're ok with it being done politically.
Yep. He/she is absolutely full of shite on this one. I've seen him/her talk about how he/she has political influence through voting to push his/her religion on others.
Page 11 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News