|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jja
Daedalian Member
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:44 pm Post subject: 121 |
 |
|
Mock thou not the IPU, for she is very Pink, and her Unseen Horn pierces the nether regions of the Unbeliever. Is it not written that he who accepts the IPU into his heart shall join her in the Pastures of Life, but he that condemns the IPU shall be consigned to muck out the Stables of Eternity?
_________________
JJA
"Sancte," inquit, "quare, quaeso, rapis arborem festam?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Internet Stranger
Paragon of Mafia Hunters
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:58 pm Post subject: 122 |
|
|
Cant argue with that, the Cavecumber just sits there and greens all day anyways.
_________________
"I didn't know she was your sister I swear!"
www.InternetStranger.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:38 pm Post subject: 123 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| The good part of the Old Testament consists of mere legends and lost truth, the former invented by parents to explain to the children how the Earth was created and how they got Israel, the kids in effect believing the lies to be fact. |
There is a big difference between allegory and legend, and a very big difference between allegory and lies.
| mudbuck wrote: |
| The actual Jesus could had also been a cultist or a conspiracier against the Roman crown, or, alternatively, non-existant as a legend. |
There are non-biased accounts of Jesus' life and effect on the times. He was not non-existant. (See: Josephus)
| Borodog wrote: |
| I do not require the God hypothesis to explain any observable phenomena. That's pretty much what it comes down to for me. |
I do not require the "Borodog exists" hypothesis to explain anything in my experience. I should then conclude that you don't exist?
| jja wrote: |
| No atheist in my experience would view life as meaningless |
If you happen across some rocks that happen to be arranged in such a way that you can use them as a sundial, they mean nothing. They were not intended for anything, they have no purpose. At the most, they have a use (now that you, a concious being, have apprehended them), and nothing more.
The very idea of "meaning" simply cannot exist without considering an actor behind the phenomenon. Someone has to mean the meaning. When you consider that someone arranged that sundial, then suddenly it is obvious that it was meant to do something.
I cannot understand why any atheist would feel he needs to defend "the meaning of life." Life happened. It just did, based on the natural workings of the Natural Laws of the universe. Why would you think it means anything?
| Coyote wrote: |
| You might also ask why those human endeavors and accomplishments that are meaningless when set in a finite frame suddenly become meaningful and validated when placed in an infinite frame. Isn't it conceivable that an infinite life could also be devoid of meaning? And who would wish for such a thing? |
If our sun went supernova tomorrow, what would be the meaning of anything we had ever done? Nothing left in the universe could ever know of any of it. There wouldn't even be anything left about which some other intelligence could even wonder, "What did this mean?"
If something is eternal, though, it will continue affecting the universe endlessly (and perhaps more importantly, will continue to be effected by the universe endlessly). Anything that happens within this eternal being's view is also instantly rendered immortal, simply by having an effect on that which is immortal.
That may or may not make things more "meaningful," but it certainly makes them a helluva lot more significant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Giant Cavecucumber
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:21 am Post subject: 124 |
|
|
Are there those who deny my existence?
Are there fools still misled by the false prophets such as Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha?
Behold!
I have emerged from my cave just this once to give grave warning to all who disbelieve in my power.
The next time I emerge from my cave will it will be the end of time, and all those who disbelieved will feel the consequences of their deliberate denial of me, and they will rue their useless woship of their false pagan gods.
I will spare only those who have "Giant Cavecucumber Rules!" bumper stickers.
Beware and act soon, because the end IS near. (Date and hour TBD) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:41 am Post subject: 125 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There are non-biased accounts of Jesus' life and effect on the times. He was not non-existant. (See: Josephus) |
Come now. The reference to Josephus is recognized by all scholars worth their pillar or salt to be a Christian insertion, since it a) is clearly not worded as it would be if written by a devout, non-christian, Jew (which Josephus certainly was by all accounts according to the vast majority of his writings), b) disturbs the flow of the prose (the text immediately after the Jesus reference makes little sense with the reference in place, but makes perfect sense if it is removed), c) is missing in earlier translations of Josephus which predate the Christian translations.
| Quote: |
Originally posted by Borodog:
I do not require the God hypothesis to explain any observable phenomena. That's pretty much what it comes down to for me.
I do not require the "Borodog exists" hypothesis to explain anything in my experience. I should then conclude that you don't exist? |
Wrong. You are responding to observable, physical, phenomena, even as you type, that require my existence. I am observable. You can come visit me in Durham, North Carolina. Tell me which observable, physical, phenomena require the existence of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:44 am Post subject: 126 |
|
|
| *The reference to [Jesus in] Josephus . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jja
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:43 am Post subject: 127 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| I cannot understand why any atheist would feel he needs to defend "the meaning of life." Life happened. It just did, based on the natural workings of the Natural Laws of the universe. Why would you think it means anything? |
(I should point out in passing that it is possible to hold that the universe was designed in detail by sentient beings, packed with 'meaning' from the get-go, and still be an atheist. The more we learn about how the universe came to be, the more it becomes feasible for sentient beings to create a universe themselves. This out of the way...)
I agree that 'meaning' is a term that has relevance only to living, sentient beings. As a living, sentient being, I have no qualms with defending that life has a meaning to us. Whether it has a meaning to something else somewhere is a question on which I have no data.
I would not hold that meaning needs to be an everlasting phenomenon to be valid; that it is ephemeral does not change things from our point of view. It's meaningful to us, and when we no longer exist, the lack of meaning will matter little to us.
I think many people get hung up about the ephemerality of our existence via the sort of Platonism of spirit that religions encourage. People seem to imagine themselves as perfect and eternal icons, temporarily bound to a shell of meat. If you let go of this image and accept that you are a process, in the same way that a cloud or a running stream is a process, you will be better able to come to realistic terms with your mortality. Clouds change form and blow away, rivers change course and dry up, people make their choices and eventually die, but I have never heard a theist state that some divine librarian is saving the position of every last molecule in a stormfront or the exact pattern of ripples and bubbles that occurred each instant in the life of every creek. However, they still insist that somehow the sensation of "I" is going to be plucked out of the mortal body and preserved, though the former phenomena are as complex as the latter.
As George Carlin observed, the only reason we have this idea of the preservation of souls is because we made it up, and we made it up because it's in our best interest as living beings. I have written a parable on this subject that may be viewed at http://www.jja.org/parallel.html if anyone is interested.
Theists would perhaps like to eat their cake and have it too, not understanding that life is all about enjoying the cake when you eat it, and making sure you get the maximum possible use from it. Quality is the measure, not duration.
| casinopete wrote: |
If something is eternal, though, it will continue affecting the universe endlessly (and perhaps more importantly, will continue to be effected by the universe endlessly). Anything that happens within this eternal being's view is also instantly rendered immortal, simply by having an effect on that which is immortal.
That may or may not make things more "meaningful," but it certainly makes them a helluva lot more significant. |
Significant to whom? Should I care that a dicephalon from Theta Delta 7 will never know what kind of cheese I liked to eat? Why should meaning only be valid if it's universal? Is it not enough that it meant something to me and my fellows while I was here?
_________________
JJA
"Sancte," inquit, "quare, quaeso, rapis arborem festam?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Internet Stranger
Paragon of Mafia Hunters
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:08 am Post subject: 128 |
|
|
I am so getting my Giant Cavecumber bumper sticker now.
_________________
"I didn't know she was your sister I swear!"
www.InternetStranger.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:58 am Post subject: 129 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:45 am Post subject: 130 |
|
|
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| Come now. The reference to Josephus is recognized by all scholars worth their pillar or salt to be a Christian insertion, since it a) is clearly not worded as it would be if written by a devout, non-christian, Jew (which Josephus certainly was by all accounts according to the vast majority of his writings), b) disturbs the flow of the prose (the text immediately after the Jesus reference makes little sense with the reference in place, but makes perfect sense if it is removed), c) is missing in earlier translations of Josephus which predate the Christian translations. |
You are badly incorrect here. Every scholar worth their salt agrees that the Church at least amended Josephus' passage regarding Jesus, not that they inserted it.
Perhaps you will not take my word for it. That's fine by me. You do not live so far from Dr. James D. Tabor, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Perhaps you can visit him and see what he has to say about the passage in question.
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| Wrong. You are responding to observable, physical, phenomena, even as you type, that require my existence. |
Wrong. I am responding to observable physical phenomena that could have been created by anyone. The persona of Doc Borodog could very easily be an elaborate joke that Antrax is playing on me, or developed by anyone else here, or a group of people, or even a computer program. The existence of your posts does not in any way require "your" existence.
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| I am observable. You can come visit me in Durham, North Carolina. |
You assert that you are a physical, observable person. That doesn't make it so. Boro(Antrax)dog would make precisely the same assertion, in keeping with the character he is developing.
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| Tell me which observable, physical, phenomena require the existence of God. |
This is actually what pounds the last nail into the coffin of your argument for me. I do not know of any phenomena that require the existence of a God. Like you, "I do not require the God hypothesis", but I find this has absolutely no influence on whether I think God exists. It is not an argument that proves or disproves anything at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:01 pm Post subject: 131 |
|
|
A succint and well written debunking of the Josephus reference to Christ has already been written. In fact, many have. I quote the following from http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/sources.html#josephus .
| Quote: |
Flavius Josephus
The third candidate is the other Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, whom we have introduced earlier. In his Antiquities of the Jews we actually find two references to Jesus. In the third paragraph of the third chapter of the eighteenth volume we read the following remarkable passage:
Antiquities 18:3:3
At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if a man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men and they joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the messiah. And our leaders denounced him. When Pilate caused him to be crucified, those who loved him before did not deny him. For he appeared to them after having risen from death on the third day. The holy prophets had, moreover, predicted of him these and many other wonders. The race of Christians takes its name from him, and still exists at the present time.
Based on all his extant writings, Josephus, was obviously not a Christian. From his own Autobiography we know that Josephus was trained as a Pharisee. The phrases italicized in the above passage are certainly those which no Jew would have made, except one that is on the verge of conversion to Christianity. [3] No sensible scholar today accepts the authenticity of the passage as it stands. Some have claimed however, that by taking away the italicized portions, which they admit must have been added by an overzealous early Christian copyist, we can actually come to the original passage as written by Josephus. [4]
However a more probable solution exist as to the authenticity of the whole passage. The passage quoted, as mentioned above, is the third paragraph of the third chapter. As it stands today this chapter consists of five numbered paragraphs. The first paragraph deals with the trouble between the Jews and Pontius Pilate over his exhibition of the images of Caeser in Jerusalem which the natives considered sacrilegious. In the second paragraph, Josephus describes another row between Pilate and the Jews. Pilate had apportioned some money from the Temple to pay for the building of an aqueduct. The Jews again protested. This time, unlike the first incident when Pilate let them off, he had the Jews massacred. And Josephus concludes the second paragraph with: "And thus was put an end to this sedition."
It was here that the third paragraph with its allusion to Jesus follows. Immediately after this third paragraph, the fourth paragraph starts with: "At about the same time, another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." An obvious question arises: what does Josephus mean, in the context of the arrangement of the paragraphs, by another sad calamity? In its present location the fourth paragraph follows the paragraph about Jesus. Was Jesus the sad calamity? Or was it his being risen from the dead? Or was the continued existence of Christians at the date of writing the "sad calamity"? In short, the sentence in the fourth paragraph does not make sense following the third. It only makes sense if it follows immediately after the second paragraph. Here the wholesale massacre of the Jews was the sad calamity Josephus was referring to. [5]
We find further support for the non authenticity of the third paragraph from the fact that while Josephus's works was known to the earlier church fathers, we find no reference to the above passage in support of Jesus' historicity until the time of Eusebius, well into the fourth century. In fact we even find the church father Origen (c185-253) telling us that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the messiah. An unlikely statement, if the passage above existed during Origen's time. [6] These considerations, when coupled with the obviously Christian wordings of the third paragraph, shows conclusively that the passage Antiquities 18:3:3 is an early Christian insertion. In short, pious forgery. This should not surprise the reader, for it is definitely not the only case in history we have of Christians altering the contents of documents to support their faith. In fact, we have already seen a few in the previous chapter in the discussion on the Johanine Comma.
The other passage concerning Jesus in Josephus book is given Antiquities 20:9:1. It relates the death of James which the passage refers to as: "the brother of Jesus called Christ". Some commentators have argued for the authenticity of this passage by stating that this statement is of the sort the non-Christian Josephus would have made. But actually the statement is exactly the way a Christian would write it, this is, in fact the way the gospel of Matthew described Jesus (Matthew 1:16 Jesus, who is called the Christ.). In view of the previous passage, the balance of evidence seems to show that this too is an early Christian interpolation into Antiquities [7]
|
All of this makes sense to me. While you certainly cannot prove that the passages in question were not written by Flavius Josephus, Occam's Razor favors that hypothesis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:03 pm Post subject: 132 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| I do not know of any phenomena that require the existence of a God. Like you, "I do not require the God hypothesis", but I find this has absolutely no influence on whether I think God exists. It is not an argument that proves or disproves anything at all. |
Likewise, "I do not know of any phenomena that require the existence of a God." We can safely expect that, if something is not observable nor used to prove the existance of something observable or something else used to prove an existance, then we can assume that it does not exist.
I'd like to point out there are two types of beliefs: concrete and abstract. Concrete beliefs are those that rely on mathmatical or logically logical (as opposed to fuzzy logic) proofs. They are often called theories. Though, they cannot be observable though physical manifestations... yet. Such things that fall into this catagory are string theory and elements not yet discovered on the Periodic Table.
Abstract beliefs are those that do not have proof. Any proof that tries to explain it cannot be proven nor contradicted, since the proof is not a good one. Proofs that are acceptable are those that stand in a position to be contradicted and to be put into use. Since these proofs don't provide either, then they are flawed proofs. Therefore, abstract beliefs cannot be reasonably believed until they are proven by math and/or logic, which then they become concrete beliefs.
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:06 pm Post subject: 133 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The phrases italicized in the above passage are certainly those which no Jew would have made |
Why?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:09 pm Post subject: 134 |
|
|
| As for the thoughts of Dr. James D. Tabor, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies, on the subject. He merely crosses out, at his convenience, the more outrageous parts of the passage in an attempt to make it more swallowable. Nor does he address the matters of contextual misplacement and the nonsensical nature of the following passage if the Jesus passage is left in. Nor does he mention the early translations of Josephus that do not include the passage at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:12 pm Post subject: 135 |
|
|
I'm sure I did read these things there. Anyway, it doesn't really answer my question, does it? I mean, if you told me stars actually push each other apart the closer they get, you'd be an astrophysics doctor telling me so, but I still get to ask "why" and hope for a decent answer, no?
So why would no Jew say such a thing?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:23 pm Post subject: 136 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if a man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men and they joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the messiah. And our leaders denounced him. When Pilate caused him to be crucified, those who loved him before did not deny him. For he appeared to them after having risen from death on the third day. The holy prophets had, moreover, predicted of him these and many other wonders. The race of Christians takes its name from him, and still exists at the present time. |
| Quote: |
| Based on all his extant writings, Josephus, was obviously not a Christian. From his own Autobiography we know that Josephus was trained as a Pharisee. The phrases . . . in the above passage are certainly those which no Jew would have made, except one that is on the verge of conversion to Christianity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Do Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:43 pm Post subject: 137 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| Wrong. You are responding to observable, physical, phenomena, even as you type, that require my existence. |
Wrong. I am responding to observable physical phenomena that could have been created by anyone. The persona of Doc Borodog could very easily be an elaborate joke that Antrax is playing on me, or developed by anyone else here, or a group of people, or even a computer program. The existence of your posts does not in any way require "your" existence.
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
Originally posted by Doc Borodog:
I am observable. You can come visit me in Durham, North Carolina. |
You assert that you are a physical, observable person. That doesn't make it so. Boro(Antrax)dog would make precisely the same assertion, in keeping with the character he is developing. |
You've missed the point. It doesn't matter that it is "me" or "Antrax" or even some software bot to which you are responding. A physical explanation is required for an observable, physical phenomenon.
| casinopete wrote: |
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| Tell me which observable, physical, phenomena require the existence of God. |
This is actually what pounds the last nail into the coffin of your argument for me. I do not know of any phenomena that require the existence of a God. Like you, "I do not require the God hypothesis", but I find this has absolutely no influence on whether I think God exists. It is not an argument that proves or disproves anything at all. |
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. It was not meant to be an argument to disprove the existence of God. I am an agnostic, not an atheist. This certainly wasn't clear given the topic of the thread. My apologies. You cannot prove the non-existence of God. On the other hand, theists could quite easily prove his existence if they could point to observable physical phenomena that require his existence. In fact, this is what theists try to do all the time. The most recent guise is "Intelligent Design." The theist posits that there is some facet of biology that he personally cannot think of a way to explain with evolution, and proclaims that it could not have evolved, thus requiring the intervention of God, oops, I meant the Intelligent Designer.
My only point is that I need not hypothesize the existence of God, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Invisible Pink Unicorns to explain any physical phenomena that I know of, therefore I don't. If someone else does (for example my wife), I have no problem with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:55 pm Post subject: 138 |
|
|
Not gonna get in on this one, just a few nitpicks.
Dr. Dawg and mudbuck:
Firstly, Boro, we were only just recently discussing a logical fallacy known as "fallacy of insufficient evidence". I don't know if you even noticed it or not. But I gave you a little example: the "No cure for cancer has been discovered. Therefore, there is no cure for cancer."
After your earlier condemnation of such logic, you are using it when you say that God does not exist because there is no proof that He does.
mudbuck, this applies to you too - with an additional little confusion I would like you to clear up.
Why is "There is no proof God exists, therefore God does not exist" any more valid as an argument than "There is no proof that God does not exist, therefore He exists"? That seems to be most of your argument.
(Of course, I have only read the last few posts, I haven't been keeping up with this thread. Like I said, just nitpicking.)
Back to Boro:
| Quote: |
| All of this makes sense to me. While you certainly cannot prove that the passages in question were not written by Flavius Josephus, Occam's Razor favors that hypothesis. |
It is only since joining the GL that I have even heard of Occam's Razor, but I think I understand the basics of what it means.
I find it laughable that you are using this to "prove" your arguments... am I correct in believing that you are trying to argue that Jesus never existed? And now you're trying to base your argument on the "simplest answer"/answer with the least assumptions?
...I am stunned and amused.
Oh, one more thing:
| jja wrote: |
| (I should point out in passing that it is possible to hold that the universe was designed in detail by sentient beings, packed with 'meaning' from the get-go, and still be an atheist. The more we learn about how the universe came to be, the more it becomes feasible for sentient beings to create a universe themselves. This out of the way...) |
This had me howling with laughter. Thanks for brightening my day. =] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:58 pm Post subject: 139 |
|
|
| meh, Boro posted while I was typing and sounds much more rational now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:44 pm Post subject: 140 |
|
|
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| Quote: |
| At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if a man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men and they joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the messiah. And our leaders denounced him. When Pilate caused him to be crucified, those who loved him before did not deny him. For he appeared to them after having risen from death on the third day. The holy prophets had, moreover, predicted of him these and many other wonders. The race of Christians takes its name from him, and still exists at the present time. |
| Quote: |
| Based on all his extant writings, Josephus, was obviously not a Christian. From his own Autobiography we know that Josephus was trained as a Pharisee. The phrases . . . in the above passage are certainly those which no Jew would have made, except one that is on the verge of conversion to Christianity. |
|
http://www.jewishmag.com/17MAG/ZVI/zvi.htm
And he's not the only one.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:49 pm Post subject: 141 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| Quote: |
| At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if a man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men and they joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the messiah. And our leaders denounced him. When Pilate caused him to be crucified, those who loved him before did not deny him. For he appeared to them after having risen from death on the third day. The holy prophets had, moreover, predicted of him these and many other wonders. The race of Christians takes its name from him, and still exists at the present time. |
| Quote: |
| Based on all his extant writings, Josephus, was obviously not a Christian. From his own Autobiography we know that Josephus was trained as a Pharisee. The phrases . . . in the above passage are certainly those which no Jew would have made, except one that is on the verge of conversion to Christianity. |
|
http://www.jewishmag.com/17MAG/ZVI/zvi.htm
And he's not the only one. |
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=non%20sequitur
Uh, what are you trying to get at? Excuse me if I'm a little dense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:57 pm Post subject: 142 |
|
|
That there have been alleged Messiahs in the past, and believing in one is not a sign of extremity of any kind.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:03 pm Post subject: 143 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| After your earlier condemnation of such logic, you are using it when you say that God does not exist because there is no proof that He does. |
No, I'm not. I think atheists make a fatal (figuratively, anyway) logical error when they do just that. Not once, ever, did I state that God does not exist.
| Quote: |
Back to Boro:
Quote:
All of this makes sense to me. While you certainly cannot prove that the passages in question were not written by Flavius Josephus, Occam's Razor favors that hypothesis.
It is only since joining the GL that I have even heard of Occam's Razor, but I think I understand the basics of what it means.
I find it laughable that you are using this to "prove" your arguments... |
I find it laughable that you cannot read for comprehension. Occam's Razor cannot prove anything. It is simply a method of deciding which of a set of scenarios is more likely to be the truth. I find, given the evidence and arguments, it to be more likely that the Jesus passage in Josephus is entirely a Christian insertion, rather than either completely or partially authentic. Therefore I do not find it to be credible, independent, contemporaneous evidence for the historical existence of a person named Jesus.
| Quote: |
| am I correct in believing that you are trying to argue that Jesus never existed? |
No.
| Quote: |
| And now you're trying to base your argument on the "simplest answer"/answer with the least assumptions? |
I'm not arguing anything, except that it seems likely that the Josephus reference to Jesus is unreliable, and cannot be used as evidence of his historical existence. This does not mean that I believe or am trying to prove that he did not exist.
Just for the record, I think it is unlikely that a person who experienced events even remotely like those described in the gospels ever existed. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the gospels had at their root a real person, however. What is almost certain, is that we can never know one way or the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Borodog
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:08 pm Post subject: 144 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| That there have been alleged Messiahs in the past, and believing in one is not a sign of extremity of any kind. |
Except that believing in this particular one makes you, by definition, a Christian. And it is abundantly clear from Josephus' writings that he was not a Christian. As already stated in the quote above, early scholars specifically stated that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the messiah, which would be difficult to reconcile if he wrote the passage in question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:08 pm Post subject: 145 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What is almost certain, is that we can never know one way or the other. |
Unless I get my time machine up and running.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:43 pm Post subject: 146 |
|
|
*edit*
[snips post]
"note to self: don't respond to arguments when you are upset and hormonal"
My apologies, Boro.
Last edited by Mackay on Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:59 pm Post subject: 147 |
|
|
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| Occam's Razor cannot prove anything. It is simply a method of deciding which of a set of scenarios is more likely to be the truth. |
This to me seems to be a succict description of the difference between Agnosticism and Athiesm.
Where an agnostic will tell you that Occam's razor can not prove anything, an athiest will tell you that "the simplist explanation is the truth". (and will most likley then go on to speak of his/her supernatural ability to "decide what is true" using the aforementioned Razor) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:31 pm Post subject: 148 |
|
|
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| As for the thoughts of Dr. James D. Tabor, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies... |
I only unleashed that monstrous title in response to your "everyone who disagrees with me is a salty moron!" opening to the post I was answering.  fnord.
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| As for the thoughts of Dr. James D. Tabor, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies, on the subject. He merely crosses out, at his convenience, the more outrageous parts of the passage in an attempt to make it more swallowable. |
Wrong. He examines two separate manuscripts, and holds to what they contain in common while rejecting the obvious embellishment. This is not merely an attempt to "make it more swallowable."
| Borodog wrote: |
| Nor does he address the matters of contextual misplacement and the nonsensical nature of the following passage if the Jesus passage is left in. |
I think it is possible you have neglected to read the Josephus for yourself. The fourth paragraph is about a man tricking a woman into sleeping with him by pretending he's Anubis. This does not follow the second paragraph any better than it does the third, whose existence you are questioning. Josephus' writing is not always thematically smooth.
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| Nor does he mention the early translations of Josephus that do not include the passage at all. |
He mentions the earliest manuscripts in existence. They do include the passage. I am not aware of any that do not.
| Borodog wrote: |
| A succint and well written debunking of the Josephus reference to Christ has already been written. In fact, many have. I quote the following from...All of this makes sense to me. While you certainly cannot prove that the passages in question were not written by Flavius Josephus, Occam's Razor favors that hypothesis. |
The section in the site you linked to is dishonestly framed. The author takes the more outrageous version of the paragraph, and claims that since it doesn't seem to fit the flow in Josephus, that the passage clearly did not exist. But this consequence is precisely what you would expect to find if the text was embellished by a frisky scribe, and doesn't lend weight to either side.
Your source does not bother to examine any other version, in any other manuscript, and in fact neglects to mention that they exist. This also is dishonest. The funny thing about Occam's Razor is that it just plain don't mean shit when it's wielded by a hand that deliberately ignores information just because it doesn't support the things he's declaring.
| that guy wrote: |
| The other passage concerning Jesus in Josephus book is given Antiquities 20:9:1. It relates the death of James which the passage refers to as: "the brother of Jesus called Christ". Some commentators have argued for the authenticity of this passage by stating that this statement is of the sort the non-Christian Josephus would have made. But actually the statement is exactly the way a Christian would write it, this is, in fact the way the gospel of Matthew described Jesus (Matthew 1:16 Jesus, who is called the Christ.). In view of the previous passage, the balance of evidence seems to show that this too is an early Christian interpolation into Antiquities |
Balance of evidence?!? He declares this an interpolation for no other reason than he thinks the first one was as well. This is very bad science. This mention exists in every Josephus manuscript, and there is absolutely no reason to guess it was interpolated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:23 am Post subject: 149 |
|
|
| Do Borodog wrote: |
| You've missed the point. It doesn't matter that it is "me" or "Antrax" or even some software bot to which you are responding. A physical explanation is required for an observable, physical phenomenon. |
If this was your point, I didn't miss it. I agree that every physical phenomenon has a physical explanation. I was trying to stay connected to your original post, which seemed to declare that a hypothesis is not true unless it is required to explain something physical. I do not think lack of such a requirement lends any weight to rejection of the hypothesis.
| Do Borodog wrote: |
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. It was not meant to be an argument to disprove the existence of God. I am an agnostic, not an atheist. This certainly wasn't clear given the topic of the thread. My apologies. You cannot prove the non-existence of God.
...
My only point is that I need not hypothesize the existence of God, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Invisible Pink Unicorns to explain any physical phenomena that I know of, therefore I don't. If someone else does (for example my wife), I have no problem with that. |
Cool. Very cool, actually, that you see where I was coming from. (I think Mackay was coming from the same place, just with very unfortunate timing. fnord.
| Do Borodog wrote: |
| On the other hand, theists could quite easily prove his existence if they could point to observable physical phenomena that require his existence. In fact, this is what theists try to do all the time. The most recent guise is "Intelligent Design." The theist posits that there is some facet of biology that he personally cannot think of a way to explain with evolution, and proclaims that it could not have evolved, thus requiring the intervention of God, oops, I meant the Intelligent Designer. |
What can I say? I fully recognize that most theists are neither particularly bright, nor reasonable. Normally, all I ask is that when someone remarks on it, they take notice that most atheists (and even agnostics) are similarly unreasonable and clueless. fnord. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:50 am Post subject: 150 |
|
|
I'd like to note that while I'm an atheist, I'm also an agnostic (if I haven't said it before)
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 4:11 am Post subject: 151 |
|
|
| I'd like to note that while I'm an agnostic, I am neither bright nor particularly reasonable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 4:36 am Post subject: 152 |
|
|
Well, of course. You're Canadian.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil Empire
Soopy's Favourite
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 3:06 pm Post subject: 153 |
|
|
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
| Mackay wrote: |
| After your earlier condemnation of such logic, you are using it when you say that God does not exist because there is no proof that He does. |
No, I'm not. I think atheists make a fatal (figuratively, anyway) logical error when they do just that. Not once, ever, did I state that God does not exist.
|
| Doc Borodog wrote: |
EE,
I do not believe that IPUs exist. Furthermore, I believe that IPUs do not exist. |
Isn’t this a contradiction in your belief system?
Why the exception for god? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:03 pm Post subject: 154 |
|
|
| Evil Empire wrote: |
Isn’t this a contradiction in your belief system?
Why the exception for god? |
Perhaps by definition.
It is not possible for something to be both pink and invisible at the same time.
Also there is a difference in saying "I believe X is Y" and saying "X is Y".
The former leaves room for doubt (i.e. X != Y is possible) whereas the latter emphatically expresses the fact that X=Y. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GH
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:52 pm Post subject: 155 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| It is not possible for something to be both pink and invisible at the same time. |
This particular claim made me wonder something which is probably just barely related to the discussion at hand. Do blind people experience "color"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:06 pm Post subject: 156 |
|
|
| GH wrote: |
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| It is not possible for something to be both pink and invisible at the same time. |
This particular claim made me wonder something which is probably just barely related to the discussion at hand. Do blind people experience "color"? |
You had me worried there.
I thought you were going to mention something pink that would not be visible once it is hidden. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:19 am Post subject: 157 |
|
|
| GH wrote: |
| Do blind people experience "color"? |
Do colorblind people experience color?
A colorblind person who can't distinguish red from green can be fitted with glasses with split colored lenses, half green and half red, which will allow them to distinguish between red and green. A red object will appear darker (and a green object lighter) through the green half of the lens than through the red half. Can a colorblid person fitted with such glasses (i.e. the whole system - person plus glasses) experience color? They can tell you which is which. If we say no, how do we know that anyone can distinguish, other than by the fact they can tell us which is which?
(apologies for the hijack) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil Empire
Soopy's Favourite
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:20 pm Post subject: 158 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
Perhaps by definition.
It is not possible for something to be both pink and invisible at the same time. |
Kind of nitpicky, eh? I suspect that if I had just asked about pink unicorns or invisible unicorns his answer would be the same.
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
Also there is a difference in saying "I believe X is Y" and saying "X is Y".
The former leaves room for doubt (i.e. X != Y is possible) whereas the latter emphatically expresses the fact that X=Y. |
That’s my point, why is he able to say “I believe that IPU’s (or PU’s for that matter) don’t exist” but not “I believe that God doesn’t exist”? Why the exception?
Who knows, maybe it comes down to a difference in our definitions of atheist and agnostic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doormouse11
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:52 am Post subject: 159 |
|
|
Is life wonderful? Is it a gift, a pain in the ass or neutral?
I'm agnostic, which currently allows me the possibility of believing anything could happen after I die. I don't think I would fare well if I firmly believed in life just stopping. If I thought life was a total unworthwhile pain in the ass I could probably handle the idea, but as it is, I've grown really attached to life.
This is where agnosticism comes in handy - I don't know what's going to happen after death, so I just don't worry about it. But if I believed life would just stop, I'd go nuts. An eventual absence of life is too foreign for me to acknowledge and still sleep well at night. How do atheists do it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jja
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:02 pm Post subject: 160 |
|
|
Life is wonderful, neutral, often a pain in the ass or worse, but it's what we have to work with.
This was a problem that bothered me for a long time; I was raised as a christian and it was one of the many things I had to reexamine. One can be an atheist and still believe in an afterlife, but this is rare, as usually the same reasoning that made you reject theism leads you to reject the idea of eternal souls as well.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, what helped me was when I stopped thinking of myself as some eternal entity temporarily trapped in a shell of meat, and thought of myself as a natural process through time, similar to a tree, river or story. It's natural for these things to have an ending, and so it is for humans. I think quality is of far more value than duration, and I don't see why eternal existence is necessary to justify our lives or give them meaning.
The basis of life is ephemerality; even the stars and galaxies are changing. If you were a galaxy, you might well regret passing after 'only' several billion years of existence. That's just the desire for survival speaking up. We're all survival machines and it is not normal for us to want to die, so we made up this neat story about how we'll continue living in some way after our bodies stop working. That it is useful to plug this hole in our psyches with such a story doesn't make the story true.
There are at least two ways (aside from genetics) in which your life can continue to have meaning and value to other humans after you come to an end - words and deeds. Beyond that, what would you want to accomplish? I think it's just the abrupt ending that you fear...
I think that most people haven't thought through what it would actually mean to exist forever. What would you really do with all that time? Would you accomplish new things, or would you keep doing what you're doing now? Would you try to do a bit of everything that's possible in the universe? If you accomplished this, what would be left for you to do for the rest of infinity? Your brain can't keep growing with new knowledge; there's not enough energy or matter in the universe. So you could stagnate in your old dogma, locking yourself into the same old patterns for eternity, or you could periodically forget everything and start over. And what's the difference between that last condition and dying?
I'll close with a quote from Stanislaw Lem which I've always admired. It arises in a story where an inventor has created a device that can hold a human's personality unchanged for millenia, thereby creating an 'immortal' soul. The protagonist, Ijon Tichy, argues against this plan:
| Quote: |
"People do not want immortality... They simply do not want to die. They want to live... They want to feel the ground beneath their feet, see the clouds overhead, love other people, be with them, and think. Nothing more. Everything that has been said beyond that is a lie."
(From Memoirs of a Space Traveler.) |
_________________
JJA
"Sancte," inquit, "quare, quaeso, rapis arborem festam?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
