Free Will

[Roz]

You seem to just want to argue for the hell of it....which I consider a young man trait.

 

The irony meter just broke

[Neverlandrut]

I deduced in my mind that you are young based on your comments. I was wanting to see if I was correct. You seem to just want to argue for the hell of it....which I consider a young man trait.

Your looking in the mirror End3, because you do the same. And I don't argue for the hell of it. As I said in my previous posts that you completely ignored, I argue/debate because it is fun for me and keeps my thinking sharp. So maybe I'm an old man.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

You seem to just want to argue for the hell of it....which I consider a young man trait.

The irony meter just broke

Wow! Can't believe he made that accusation!

[Guest end3]

Florduh,

 

So how do we allow hieroglyphs and shards of pottery to then determine "facts" about cultures? Certainly seems many scientists would like to say, and DO say, this piece of pottery prove X or Y about these people. Not just that they used these raw materials, but they "factually" did X and Y. Do I need to carve the words in stone or what to then make them evidence?

[Guest end3]

 

 

You seem to just want to argue for the hell of it....which I consider a young man trait.

The irony meter just broke

 

Wow! Can't believe he made that accusation!

 

The point is, even when I agree with you, you continue to argue....I'll note that you enjoy it. Thx.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

You seem to just want to argue for the hell of it....which I consider a young man trait.

The irony meter just broke

 

Wow! Can't believe he made that accusation!

 

The point is, even when I agree with you, you continue to argue....I'll note that you enjoy it. Thx.

 

Then say what you mean.  As I read back, I see only one place where we agreed (it seemed to allude you at that time).  Either I didn't recognize it, or you were not clear in your agreement.  Would you mind listing the points on which we agree?  I have a very strong suspicion that you are going to straw man my points.  

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

You seem to just want to argue for the hell of it....which I consider a young man trait.

The irony meter just broke

 

Wow! Can't believe he made that accusation!

 

The point is, even when I agree with you, you continue to argue....I'll note that you enjoy it. Thx.

 

Then say what you mean.  As I read back, I see only one place where we agreed (it seemed to allude you at that time).  Either I didn't recognize it, or you were not clear in your agreement.  Would you mind listing the points on which we agree?  I have a very strong suspicion that you are going to straw man my points.

 

I was testing my previous hypothesis regarding arguing. You don't wish to submit data, but you did submit subjective data... But that's unreal, I forgot. And it's not science. Dang stupid me again. And we can't correlate any of these relationships. Fuck, three strikes for me...I'm out. I'm a religious idiot.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to just want to argue for the hell of it....which I consider a young man trait.

The irony meter just broke

Wow! Can't believe he made that accusation!

The point is, even when I agree with you, you continue to argue....I'll note that you enjoy it. Thx.

Then say what you mean. As I read back, I see only one place where we agreed (it seemed to allude you at that time). Either I didn't recognize it, or you were not clear in your agreement. Would you mind listing the points on which we agree? I have a very strong suspicion that you are going to straw man my points.

I was testing my previous hypothesis regarding arguing. You don't wish to submit data, but you did submit subjective data... But that's unreal, I forgot. And it's not science. Dang stupid me again. And we can't correlate any of these relationships. Fuck, three strikes for me...I'm out. I'm a religious idiot.

You cannot even answer my question (you didn't answer my question at all) without making false accusations. I submitted OBJECTIVE factual statements about what science is and corrected you when you misrepresented science. Since you continue to be dishonest in your responses and intentionally misrepresent what I say, I'm done with you. If this were a formal debate you would have OBJECTIVELY lost because of your dodging and dishonest tactics.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to just want to argue for the hell of it....which I consider a young man trait.

The irony meter just broke

 

Wow! Can't believe he made that accusation!

 

The point is, even when I agree with you, you continue to argue....I'll note that you enjoy it. Thx.

 

Then say what you mean. As I read back, I see only one place where we agreed (it seemed to allude you at that time). Either I didn't recognize it, or you were not clear in your agreement. Would you mind listing the points on which we agree? I have a very strong suspicion that you are going to straw man my points.

 

I was testing my previous hypothesis regarding arguing. You don't wish to submit data, but you did submit subjective data... But that's unreal, I forgot. And it's not science. Dang stupid me again. And we can't correlate any of these relationships. Fuck, three strikes for me...I'm out. I'm a religious idiot.

 

You cannot even answer my question without making false accusations. I submitted OBJECTIVE factual statements about what science is and corrected you when you misrepresented science. Since you continue to be dishonest in your responses and intentionally misrepresent what I say, I'm done with you. If this were a formal debate you would have OBJECTIVELY lost because of your dodging and dishonesty.

 

Finally, we are in agreement....

[florduh]

Florduh,

 

So how do we allow hieroglyphs and shards of pottery to then determine "facts" about cultures? Certainly seems many scientists would like to say, and DO say, this piece of pottery prove X or Y about these people. Not just that they used these raw materials, but they "factually" did X and Y. Do I need to carve the words in stone or what to then make them evidence?

The pottery and other artifacts actually exist physically. Conclusions and theories can be made from such evidence, where they were found, where else they exist, their age. There is a logical train of thought involved. Heiroglyphs and other writing, ancient and modern, can express factual information, stories, legends, or in some cases pretend to be more than that. The enduring mythologies, Norse, Greek, Hebrew, etc. tell a tale of the societies that wrote them; how they lived and how they viewed the universe. None have been shown to be a reliable source of factual information or truth. To single out the Bible or any other such mythologies as The One, The Truth above all the others is folly.

[florduh]

General Announcement:

 

This is the Lion's Den. Almost anything goes, and it goes both ways. My own words have been twisted by others and Christians make faith-based illogical arguments every day. Let's lighten up a little and leave the threats to Jehovah. Okay guys? Or should I be more specific?

[Neverlandrut]

Will do florduh. Everyone saw End3 concede that he is dishonest and misrepresents what people say, right? Just want to point that out.

[florduh]

Not directed at you, Neverlandrut. This is the Den and don't dish it out if you can't take it. Don't whine to the teacher if Johnny said something mean on the playground. IOW, it's the fucking Den and the distinct lack of rules applies to all of us. I'll level specific charges if necessary, but I thought a general announcement might cover it. Thanks for your attention.

[RipVanWinkle]

"Sorry, no. No so-called holy books, writings, "revealed" wisdom or philosophical meanderings count as evidence. They are opinion, flights of fancy, attempts to explain the as yet unexplained, but they are not anything like factual evidence. florduh

 

I disagree...."body of information"

 

noun

 

noun: evidence End3

 

 

 

End3: The bible is evidence of what? If you are saying, as I think you are, that the bible is evidence of the truthfulness of what is says, you could not be more wrong.Do you really believe that? If so, the Koran is evidence of the truthfulness of what it says.I know you don't agree with that. So, pray tell,

what is your basis for the difference? Eh?

 

How can a book taken by faith be considered evidence of its truthfulness? Faith, which by definition is not based upon evidence, can elevate the BIBLE, a book of ancient and unknown writers, to the level of evidence of the latter's truthfulness? That's quite a trick. And this is Xtians primary basis for its religion? Wow. bill

[Ravenstar]

What do hieroglyphics have to do with this? It's a form of writing… as is runic, cuneiform and also logographic.

 

No archaeologist or historian takes anything written ages ago as 'fact'… they are clues, bits and pieces of a puzzle (especially when the language is long dead and the people are long gone)… and each peoples had their own way of imparting information… the Greeks were particularly fond of allegory for instance. Some writing is more based in reality than others. A tally for how many cows one had or traded, or a legal contract is probably more reliable than a poem, prayer, story or hymn… or a conquest.  

 

Cuneiform writing predates the Bible by about 2000 years, as used by the Sumerians… but I've never seen an Annunaki and I can't say if they are real.

 

Heiroglyphs also predate the Bible but Ra doesn't seem to be around. (though the Kings [Dynastic] lists are pretty accurate so far, backed up by actual DNA and other evidence).

 

It seems to me that a lot of people really don't understand how science works.

[bornagainathiest]

A suitable response is in preparation.

[gall]

What do hieroglyphics have to do with this? It's a form of writing… as is runic, cuneiform and also logographic.

 

No archaeologist or historian takes anything written ages ago as 'fact'… they are clues, bits and pieces of a puzzle (especially when the language is long dead and the people are long gone)… and each peoples had their own way of imparting information… the Greeks were particularly fond of allegory for instance. Some writing is more based in reality than others. A tally for how many cows one had or traded, or a legal contract is probably more reliable than a poem, prayer, story or hymn… or a conquest.  

 

Cuneiform writing predates the Bible by about 2000 years, as used by the Sumerians… but I've never seen an Annunaki and I can't say if they are real.

 

Heiroglyphs also predate the Bible but Ra doesn't seem to be around. (though the Kings [Dynastic] lists are pretty accurate so far, backed up by actual DNA and other evidence).

 

It seems to me that a lot of people really don't understand how science works.

 

The number one most important observation I make of most people that are not scientists and most "christian scientists" I have met.

 

I highlighted it above and made it BIGGER.

 

This is an empirical observation nothing more.

 

I know it can be hard but to accept science on faith alone is like lighting yourself on fire then screaming to everyone around you need a towel to dry yourself off because you are wet.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

I know it can be hard but to accept science on faith alone is like lighting yourself on fire then screaming to everyone around you need a towel to dry yourself off because you are wet.

 

 

Actually, it sounds a lot like more like Christians just accepting their god on faith and claiming they know what he wants, though they've never actually interacted with him (unless they have a mental illness; seems he talks to lots of those people, hint, hint), seen him, and can not comprehend him. I really don't see how your comparison makes sense.

[Guest end3]

 

What do hieroglyphics have to do with this? It's a form of writing… as is runic, cuneiform and also logographic.

 

No archaeologist or historian takes anything written ages ago as 'fact'… they are clues, bits and pieces of a puzzle (especially when the language is long dead and the people are long gone)… and each peoples had their own way of imparting information… the Greeks were particularly fond of allegory for instance. Some writing is more based in reality than others. A tally for how many cows one had or traded, or a legal contract is probably more reliable than a poem, prayer, story or hymn… or a conquest.  

 

Cuneiform writing predates the Bible by about 2000 years, as used by the Sumerians… but I've never seen an Annunaki and I can't say if they are real.

 

Heiroglyphs also predate the Bible but Ra doesn't seem to be around. (though the Kings [Dynastic] lists are pretty accurate so far, backed up by actual DNA and other evidence).

 

It seems to me that a lot of people really don't understand how science works.

 

The number one most important observation I make of most people that are not scientists and most "christian scientists" I have met.

 

I highlighted it above and made it BIGGER.

 

This is an empirical observation nothing more.

 

I know it can be hard but to accept science on faith alone is like lighting yourself on fire then screaming to everyone around you need a towel to dry yourself off because you are wet.

 

We were having a discussion about the definition of evidence. It's reprehensible that "clues" are just evidence to some archeologist (scientist) that routinely declare "facts" of past societies, yet the contributions to the Bible are somehow dismissed as "clues" to "facts" about past people???? And then to bias all this behind "stupid Christians can't understand science"?

 

What a hoot.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Like with the bible, you are simply reading what you want the post to say.  At no point does the post say anything about "stupid christians".  Shame on you.

[Ravenstar]

No.. it actually isn't.

 

The Bible is taken at face value by historians, as are all other written works by ancient peoples. The DIFFERENCE is that it is NOT considered evidence of the supernatural… neither are the Vedas, the Egyptian Pyramid Texts or the Enuma Elish, just another clue to who the ancient hebrews were - it is definitely not considered factual history though - just one more pointer to what may have really happened. Another difference is that in science all conclusions are subject to revision with new evidence. Example: We originally thought that the Pyramids were built by slaves… we now know, through archaeology, that the workers were paid and treated well, they were not slaves.

 

You do not understand the definition of 'facts' in science.. nor does science EVER say it has PROOF of anything. Just the best possible explanation given the available evidence. Do you have ANY clue as to the amount of written works we have from the ancient middle east alone? The Torah is one very small portion of it. To give it more weight than any others would be BAD SCIENCE. The Hebrews were a minor people in a very busy area with some HUGE empires. (Persian. Akkadian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Phoneician, Hittite, etc…)

 

The Hebrew texts are NOT ignored by historians.. good grief, look up biblical archaeology, it's all over the place - the hard part is keeping it real science and not conjecture. Here is the difference.. honest scientists follow the evidence and come up with a conclusion… dishonest people (scientists included) start with a conclusion and try to find the evidence.

 

It's BULLSHIT to say the historical community ignores the hebrew texts or archaeology.. absolute bullshit.

 

if you don't want to be derided for not understanding science.. don't show that you don't understand science by blathering about things you are obviously ignorant of. You WILL get called out for it. And if it's about ancient history or archaeology I will call you out because it's a subject I am passionate about.

[mymistake]

 

We were having a discussion about the definition of evidence. It's reprehensible that "clues" are just evidence to some archeologist (scientist) that routinely declare "facts" of past societies, yet the contributions to the Bible are somehow dismissed as "clues" to "facts" about past people???? And then to bias all this behind "stupid Christians can't understand science"?

 

What a hoot.

 

 

 

The content of the Bible are clues when it comes to understanding ancient cultures and ancient religion.  Unfortunately this does not make those religions true.

[Roz]

To any other christians out there, ask yourself why you don't believe anything in say... this website:  http://www.quranandscience.com/

 

When you get it, you'll understand why we don't take your own holy book as scientific evidence for your supernatural BS.

[Guest end3]

No.. it actually isn't.

 

The Bible is taken at face value by historians, as are all other written works by ancient peoples. The DIFFERENCE is that it is NOT considered evidence of the supernatural… neither are the Vedas, the Egyptian Pyramid Texts or the Enuma Elish, just another clue to who the ancient hebrews were - it is definitely not considered factual history though - just one more pointer to what may have really happened. Another difference is that in science all conclusions are subject to revision with new evidence. Example: We originally thought that the Pyramids were built by slaves… we now know, through archaeology, that the workers were paid and treated well, they were not slaves.

 

You do not understand the definition of 'facts' in science.. nor does science EVER say it has PROOF of anything. Just the best possible explanation given the available evidence. Do you have ANY clue as to the amount of written works we have from the ancient middle east alone? The Torah is one very small portion of it. To give it more weight than any others would be BAD SCIENCE. The Hebrews were a minor people in a very busy area with some HUGE empires. (Persian. Akkadian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Phoneician, Hittite, etc…)

 

The Hebrew texts are NOT ignored by historians.. good grief, look up biblical archaeology, it's all over the place - the hard part is keeping it real science and not conjecture. Here is the difference.. honest scientists follow the evidence and come up with a conclusion… dishonest people (scientists included) start with a conclusion and try to find the evidence.

 

It's BULLSHIT to say the historical community ignores the hebrew texts or archaeology.. absolute bullshit.

 

if you don't want to be derided for not understanding science.. don't show that you don't understand science by blathering about things you are obviously ignorant of. You WILL get called out for it. And if it's about ancient history or archaeology I will call you out because it's a subject I am passionate about.

Who said I am ignoring weighted input? Again, the discussion was about evidence period. Everyone yesterday was saying the Bible could not be submitted as any type of evidence period.

 

Reasonably sure we are miscommunicating. Y'all are saying scientific evidence regarding the supernatural and I am saying evidence of a culture. Big difference.

[Guest end3]

 

We were having a discussion about the definition of evidence. It's reprehensible that "clues" are just evidence to some archeologist (scientist) that routinely declare "facts" of past societies, yet the contributions to the Bible are somehow dismissed as "clues" to "facts" about past people???? And then to bias all this behind "stupid Christians can't understand science"?

 

What a hoot.

 

 

The content of the Bible are clues when it comes to understanding ancient cultures and ancient religion.  Unfortunately this does not make those religions true.

 

Thanks, I think we are on the same page. What I DO believe is one may take these clues and can be lead to scientific discovery.