Unreasonable Faith Forum

A Reasonable Forum on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism

  • Home
  • About
  • Forum
  • Writings
  • A Reading List
  • Submissions
  • Contact

Register or Log In

Unreasonable Faith Forum » Introduction » Welcome / Introduce Yourself

I'll be your whipping boy

(248 posts) (21 voices)
  • Started 2 years ago by Nox
  • Latest reply from JonJon

Tags:

  • 2013 cocktail dresses
  • bridal dresses online
  • bridesmaid dresses toronto stores
  • celebrity dresses 100
  • celebrity wedding dresses
  • cheap bridesmaid dresses
  • designer mother of the bride dresses 2010
  • discount prom dress
  • discounted bridesmaid dresses
  • evening gowns party dresses
  • fake replica watches
  • fake watches
  • green spring dress
  • megathread
  • military ball dresses sale
  • Philosophy
  • plus size dresses for women
  • plus size wedding dresses
  • Replica A Lange Sohne watches
  • Science
  • short bridesmaid dresses under 100
  • short homecoming dresses
  • spring cocktail dresses for women
  • spring party dress
  • sweetheart cocktail dresses
  • The Bible
  • Theology
  • white formal dresses
  • wholesale jewelry
  • women s spring dresses
« Previous1234…9Next »
  1. Nox
    Member

    @GoatFeathers

    I'm open to hearing alternative theories with an open mind. But no, I don't take exception to Ursa's explanation. There are other possibilities, but I'm inclined to favor this one, as being the most consistent with itself and with related theories. But if you have a more solid explanation I'd be interested to hear it. Though I'm still not entirely clear on how an alternative version of star formation would affect the original question.

    @UrsaMinor

    Oddly, there is no blanket condemnation of incest anywhere in the bible. There are however very strict statements in the law of Moses against certain types of incest. For example, Leviticus 20:12 states "And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them". A double death sentence if a man f*cks his daughter-in-law, but there is not even the vaguest suggestion anywhere in the bible that it would be wrong for a man to f*ck his own biological daughter. Likewise, there is no direct statement that a son should not f*ck his mother. But "the wife of his father" is a totally different story. You guessed it, "both of them shall surely be put to death". One might suppose at first glance that the more obvious direct forms of incest would just not need to be mentioned, but a closer look at the story contradicts this as well. Lot, the one righteous man in all of Sodom was committing incest with his two daughters (the same two daughters he offered to the mob earlier) the day after his wife and all his friends died. Abraham marries his sister. As does Solomon. Moses and Aaron are the products of an incestuous relationship. And the anonymous narrator doesn't seem to have a moral objection to any of this.

    One thing I would point out though. Eve wouldn't be Adam's sister. If we take the biblical model at face value then she was made entirely from Adam's genetic material. And if there is any technical classification for someone made from someone else's rib, I think that would be a clone. Of course this doesn't solve the problem of genetic diversity (it makes it just a little bit more of a problem), but there is nothing in Leviticus that says you can't f*ck your clone.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  2. Nox
    Member

    Ok Goat, some of these are gonna be pretty long (especially #7 & #9), so I'm gonna keep breaking them up into shorter posts. Here's the next 2.

    (3)

    Well the bible does say on numerous occasions that god likes the smell of burning flesh and that it is “a sweet savour unto him” (which actually explains a lot of the stuff in the bible), but the concept of atonement is conspicuously absent from this story. And atonement for who? For Noah who “was a just man and perfect” or for the thousands of people god had already killed? And if a drowned goat is somehow less pleasing to god than a burnt goat, why did he just drown so many of them in Genesis 7?

    “Why is efficiency the primary goal”? Efficiency is not a goal. It is merely the ratio of output to input. It is a way to compare methods of achieving a goal. The ‘goal’ of putting these animals on the ark as stated by god in Genesis 6:19 is “to keep them alive”. Leaving aside the numerous things that are already wrong with this story about a 600 year old man, gathering 7 of every “clean” animal and 2 of every “unclean” animal (by the way, if Noah was before Moses, how did he know which animals were unclean) and putting them on a 450’x75’x45’ boat (presumably including animals which have never been indiginous to northern Africa) (and since we know from Genesis 1 that animals don’t evolve, then Noah’s gonna need 7 of each subspecies. So that’s not 7 elephants on the ark. It’s 28 elephants) (and 7 each of the 30,000,000 or so species of spiders) (and 7 isn’t even really enough genetic diversity to propogate a species), we still have the oddity in Genesis 8:20. If your “goal” was “to keep them alive” and you had spent almost six months carrying more animals than your ark had room for, for the sole purpose of keeping them alive, why would you just get off the boat and start killing your specimens? Aren’t they supposed to be repopulating or something?

    (4)

    “So why those ten and not others? Maybe because the ten commandments is not God's top ten? Maybe these ten serve a different purpose.”

    Interesting. Very interesting.

    This answer shows a lot of promise (this and #8 are your best answers in my opinion). But I’m curious what you think that different purpose is.

    Would it perhaps have more to do with tribal organization than morality?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  3. UrsaMinor
    Member

    @Nox:

    I hadn't even thought of the clone implications before. Assuming that Eve was cloned from Adam's rib, and Adam's Y chromosome replaced with a copy of his X chromosome in order to make her female, then Adam and Eve were just one stunty and mostly empty little chromosome short of being identical twins. Way closer than brother and sister.

    Of course you can just as easily assume that God waved his hand and made Eve completely genetically distinct from Adam at all loci in order to maximize the chances for breeding success- but this still falls far short of explaining current human genetic diversity. Even if you allow for mutation (and the subsequent threat of evolution that it implies), the early rates of mutation must have been orders of magnitude higher than we see in humans today in order to account for present-day diversity. I will, of course, concede that the required mutation rate depends on your choice of timescale- but if you're willing to toss the traditional 6000-year-or-so chronology of the world overboard (the one derived from adding up the ages of the patriarchs), what else from Genesis are you going to throw out? Which parts do you keep? And how do you choose?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  4. Nox
    Member

    (5)

    I’m not sure if you’ve actually read the old testament, but what you are defending here is genocide. I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t realize that.

    Okay, I’m gonna temporarily grant the completely ridiculous and barbaric premise that witch burning and stoning someone to death for gathering firewood on the sabbath are “just”, so that I can address your actual point a little more directly.

    I get that the actual meaning of “thou shalt not kill” is actually more like “thou shalt not commit murder”, but a more accurate reading would be “thou shalt not murder other jews”.

    “So none of the examples that you have mentioned above would qualify as murder because they all had a just reason for being put to death.”

    I actually mentioned five examples. And only three of them related to capital punishment. I chose these three because no reasonable person (christian, jew, atheist, or other) would ever consider these things a justification for executing someone. And there are plenty of other examples. Praying to other gods, death (Deuteronomy 17:3-5). A woman not having an intact hymen on her wedding night, death (Deuteronomy 22:13-25). Lying with mankind as one lies with a woman, death (Leviticus 20:13). And perhaps most revealing of all…

    Deuteronomy 17:12
    And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.

    If one of your children goes through a naturally occuring rebellious phase as a teenager and disobeys you (or worse, curses you), would you do what any decent person (christian or otherwise) would do and forgive them and continue loving them, or would you do as your holy book commands and stone them to death? Personally I suspect that you would never intentionally harm your children. Even if one of them turns out to be gay, or converts to islam, I imagine you will find it more just to ignore these particular commandments.

    And I know what you’re thinking, “but christians aren’t under the old jewish law, Jesus changed all of that”.

    “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
    -Jesus
    (Matthew 5:17-18)

    “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one letter of the law to fail.”
    -Jesus
    (Luke 16:17)

    But like I said, I’m going to put to one side the question of just what sins warrant capital punishment, and for the moment we can agree to disagree on that. But as I said, only the first three of my five examples were related to capital punishment. And while I don’t think you really think these would be just, there is the common theme that the people being killed here had at least done something. But the fourth and fifth example I mentioned were of wholesale slaughter (and rape in the fourth example) of innocent people being commanded by god’s prophets in the name of the same god you pray to (ironically also the same god affiliated with the ten commandments). This is not a question of whether capital punishment is murder. This is a question of whether murder is murder.

    In example #4 (Numbers 31), “the LORD spake unto Moses” and tells him to have the Israelites attack the Midianites. “And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war” “of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war”. “Twelve thousand armed for war. And Moses sent them to the war”, “and they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males”. “And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel”. “And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?” “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

    That’s Moses there. Author of the 10 Commandments, commandmenting his followers to kill all the male children and adult women of a competing tribe, then keep the young girls and rape them. That’s “just”?

    The fifth example is a little more self explanatory. The clue is the phrase “both man and woman, infant and suckling”. This is indiscriminate killing (of infants?). How the f*ck is that not murder.

    It’s not like I’m a pacifist. I’m not 100% opposed to every possible form of violence. And I don’t think the death penalty is the same thing as murder. But let’s be clear. Murder is the same thing as murder.

    Or to put that another way. Do you see any inherent contradiction (this is god talking in both of these passages) between “thou shalt not kill (murder)” and…

    Deuteronomy 20:16-17
    16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
    17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  5. Nox
    Member

    (6)

    “Why can't it be both?”

    According to Matthew, it can. According to Isaiah, it can’t. Which one do you prefer to believe? I’ll explain at the beginning of (7), but for now let me give you something to ponder.

    If I told you that I had a word from god, that the Green Bay Packers are going to win the 2011 Super Bowl. And that I could prove to you that this message was not only true, but was an authentic message from the creator of the Universe, and that my proof to you about the outcome of the next Super Bowl is that 800 years in the future a baby will be born with two heads, would you consider this a ‘sign’. I would think that despite the miraculous nature of the claim, a sign that you could never possibly see is not a sign to you.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  6. Nox
    Member

    (7)

    “Matthew does not misquote the old testament. What is happening is the unfortunate effect of people speaking different languages.”

    You make an interesting point about the Septuagint, and it reflects well on you that you know more about the history of your book than most christians. But this isn’t really what I was talking about. I knew I should have been more specific with this and (9) but a complete illustration of both points would involve going through the majority of the new testament (I’m down to do this, but it’s a separate topic and a pretty heavy one at that, so maybe something for a new thread), and my original post was already longer than the Stand, so I just stated my points as briefly as I could. Perhaps too briefly.

    I wasn’t talking about the language barrier, or simple little things like calling Josiah “Josias”. I was stating that Matthew completely misrepresents the content of several old testament passages, and asking if you had found some way of reconciling this. The problem is not that he gets a couple words or a sentence wrong. The problem is that he gets entire passages wrong. The problem is that he takes passages from the Tanakh which have clearly stated meanings in their original context, and haphazardly inserts them into the life of Jesus. I would not even have a problem with this if “Matthew” were simply claiming that there were some interesting paralels between his story of Jesus and some incidents in the old testament. But Matthew goes a lot further. He states each time that these random events in the life of Jesus were the originally intended meaning of these old testament prophecies (many aren’t even prophecies in their original context).

    The problem is that anyone can actually read the old testament passages “Matthew” is attempting to quote and see quite clearly that none of these passages could possibly be referring to Jesus.

    Have you ever wondered why jews don’t accept Jesus as the moschiach (messiah)?

    Like the issue of contradictions between the four gospels, this is a pretty dense topic, so I’m just gonna go over the first few examples.

    Right out of the gate the first words in the first gospel are a bastardized reading of the old testament. Matthew devotes the first 17 verses of his first chapter to a genealogy (of Joseph for some reason) which retells a genealogy from 1st Chronicles 10 except it leaves out 4 generations of the Chronicles genealogy. Immediately after this Matthew (1:22) tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin and that this was a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. But if you read Isaiah 7, Jesus is absolutely ruled out of this prophecy. In fact Isaiah makes it very clear that the prophesied child would be born 600 years before Jesus (according to Isaiah 8, he was and his name was Mahershalalhashbaz). The “prophecy” in this case was not even that the virgin would conceive, the young woman conceiving was meant to be a sign of the prophecy. The prophecy itself was that King Ahaz of Judah would be successful in an upcoming battle (according to 2nd Chronicles 28, Ahaz lost that battle and was killed in the aftermath).

    Right after this (Matthew 2:5) we get another fulfilled prophecy. Herod asks the priests where the messiah is to be born and they quote Micah 5:2 to him stating that he is to be born in Bethlehem. The 5th chapter of Micah does make mention of Bethlehem, but clearly states that the person who fulfills this prophecy must be a military leader. According to Micah this promised redeemer “shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian”. By the time Jesus arrived, the Jews were a lot more worried about Romans than Assyrians.

    The next 2 prophecies come back to back in Matthew 2:15-18 claiming that Jesus living in Egypt is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 which is not a prophecy but a past tense statement about the Jewish exodus from Egypt (“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt”). 3 verses after this Matthew tells us that Jeremiah 31:15 is a prediction of Herod’s slaughter of the innocents. Jeremiah seems to think differently, and if one reads the chapter in question he is quite explicit that this is a description of the Jewish exile in Babylon (see the book of Daniel).

    In Matthew 2:23 we are told that Joseph moved to Nazareth “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene”. This one is not a mere misunderstanding. There is absolutely nowhere in the old testament that anyone is called a Nazarene, nor is it predicted anywhere that someone will later be called a Nazarene. It is either a made up prophecy or it is attempting to quote Judges 13:5 where an angel tells Samson’s parents that their child (Samson, not Jesus) will be a Nazarite (Not even close to the same thing as a Nazarene).

    There are a couple dozen more of these scattered throughout the 4 books. Every one of them falls apart when you read the passage it claims to be quoting from. One odd example that is almost an exception to this is Matthew 8/Isaiah 53 (the “suffering servant” prophecy). Matthew 8:17 claims “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias (Isaiah) the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses”. The closest match in Isaiah comes in Isaiah 53:4-5 which includes these oddly Jesus like words “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed”. On it’s face this passage in Isaiah almost seems like it could be predicting the crucifixion. But for some strange reason “Matthew” chooses to apply this “prophecy” to a story about Jesus hanging out at Peter’s house in Capernaum and healing sick people.

    Okay, I’m out of time again. I rambled too long and now I have to go to work. But I’ll hit (8) (9) & (10) tomorrow. I hope I am not making you feel too much like a whipping boy with all this. I really am enjoying our conversation.

    Peace & Love

    Posted 2 years ago #
  7. Nox
    Member

    (8)

    “Have you ever noticed how preachers will reuse the same material over and over again?”

    Good point here. I was actually just throwing out the example of the Sermon on the Mount to illustrate that the gospels are not exactly eyewitness accounts (I’ll cover this in depth in #9), but you did bring up something I hadn’t thought of in relation to the example I used. Every preacher reuses material. Every comedian keeps the jokes that have worked well in the past and works them into future routines. And people like myself who like to argue about stuff like to keep and reuse arguments. I didn’t mention this before but my original list of 10 was selected mostly on the basis that no christian I have encountered (and to the best of my knowledge no apologist in the history of christendom) has ever even attempted to answer these things. Like Jesus’ sermon notebook, Houdini’s bag of tricks, Chomsky’s obscure statistics, or Bill Hicks’ cross joke, I have reused this material all over the internet, revising or discarding arguments which are refuted, and moving those which are undefeated closer to the front of the list. For what it’s worth, you’ve actually convinced me that one of my sermons could use a little polishing. Thank you.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  8. swmr1
    Member

    @Nox: I'm enjoying your posts. Thanks. Wish I had the patience you seem to have...

    Posted 2 years ago #
  9. Ty
    Moderator

    Yeah, Nox has been a saint in this thread.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  10. Huxley
    Member

    Matthew 27:51-53 is the killer part for me and the reason I joined this forum. Zombie Day!

    So why are all the other gospels wrong in omission?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  11. Nox
    Member

    @ swmr1 & Ty: Thanks. Now that elizabethdamaro is no longer gracing us with her presence, I'm finding it so much easier to be saintly and patient. And on a completely irrelevant side note I just realized "saint nox" would loosely translate to "sacred darkness" which I happen to think would be an excellent name for a band.

    @ Huxley: Stick around for a minute, zombie day is gonna be coming up shortly.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  12. Nox
    Member

    (9) (part 1)

    And here’s where it gets complicated.

    “You are going to have to give me more specific examples. I could argue that Dawkins and Niche contradict each other as well, but without more to go on, we can't have a meaningful discussion.”

    Yeah. About that. I was pretty much figuring the blanket statement that the four books contradict each other was not going to properly convey my point. I originally avoided citing any sources for (7) or (9) in order to keep the questions shorter and more readable and I should have guessed that my vague claims would ‘float across the internet like a lead balloon’. The unstated point behind my stated point was that the four gospel stories were written many years after Jesus died by people who never met Jesus. But I’ll get to that soon enough.

    Perhaps the best way I can illustrate my point is to start with your example of Dawkins and Nietzsche. While Richard Dawkins and Friedrich Nietzsche don’t overlap much (Dawkins vs. Nietzsche would be slightly more comparable to Matthew vs. Isaiah than Matthew vs. Luke), they are both critics of christianity, and they are both well respected and widely quoted atheists (it should be noted that Nietzsche never said god didn’t exist, he said “god is dead”). Certainly if there were such a thing as an atheist canon it would have to include selections from The God Delusion and Beyond Good and Evil. And if one wanted to look, there are plenty of contradictions that could be found between the two.

    But the thing is. There is not an atheist canon. I sort of tried to hint at this earlier with that whole thing about Homer and Shakespeare. But it is a clear distinction (the most important distinction in my opinion) between the bible and atheist ‘prophets’ that no one anywhere (as far as I know) thinks Richard Dawkins is inerrant. No one anywhere thinks Friedrich Nietzsche was under the influence of the holy spirit when he wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra. If one were to claim divinity or infallibility for the writings of both of these men, any contradictions between them actually would be a problem.

    I am vaguely a fan of Dawkins. And I think the majority of what he says is solid and makes pretty good sense. I don’t agree with everything he’s ever said though. And while he and I both argue against christianity, some of the arguments he has used really don’t seem like very good arguments to me.

    And while I could take or leave Dawkins, Nietzsche is a few spots above Jesus on my all time top 10 philosophers list (#1, Hunter S. Thompson). I have actually based significant portions of my life and personal idealogy on things I learned from Friedrich. Does that mean I agree with everything he ever wrote about women or jews? No. Philosophy in general and Nietzsche in particular (especially Zarathustra) is best viewed as a potential source of truth rather than a reliable source of absolute truth. Not only does my world view allow for the possibility that my prophet was wrong. My world view demands that my prophet was wrong. Yeah. He was an absolutely brilliant thinker, and he did quite a lot to advance human thought in general. But let’s be real. Friedrich Nietzsche was straight up batsh*t crazy. Like John the baptist crazy. Contributions to my own philosophy and the philosophy of humanity in general notwithstanding, it is not a coincidence that the man who wrote Beyond Good and Evil, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra went completely insane (literally insane). But again, I do not take every statement as guaranteed truth. The possibility of human error is ever present. Thomas Jefferson is another one of my prophets, and that guy owned f*cking slaves.

    So if the 4 gospels did contradict each other on pretty much every detail of Jesus life (and I assure you they do) then that would not necessarily mean that nothing in them is true. It would just require that they be read with a more skeptical (less inerrant view). Even with direct contradictions between the four books, we would be left with the possibility that each of the four contains at least one (and possibly more) statement which is completely true, as well as the possibility that none of these four books contain anything which the authors did not genuinely believe to be true. The problem is that if you think it is a true story, you just might miss the truth in the story.

    The Jesus character in the bible is wrong about some things, and the historical Jesus might not have even existed. But this does not rule out the possibility that the Jesus character in the bible is right about some things. As I said earlier, the golden rule (and quite a few other red letter quotes) stands on it’s own with or without being associated with Jesus.

    To put it another way, the fact that you and I disagree is not proof that one of us is lying. However it is proof that one of us is wrong. You have honestly interpreted the data you have seen as evidence of God. I have honestly interpreted the data I have seen as evidence of no god. We are each free to form our own opinions, and we can agree to have a civil discussion (I’m glad we have decided to do this, it’s fun), but what we absolutely can not do is both be right about the issue at the core of that discussion (see my earlier comment about Heisenberg and product testing).

    One more quick tangent before I get to my mini-bible-study. The most common argument used against the argument of gospel contradictions is something I call “the car wreck scenario”. I’ve encountered variations on this one countless times, and the modern form of it appears to originate with Josh McDowell. Please note, I’m not in any way trying to put these words in your mouth, I’m just saying this has come up in debates with other christians (almost as often as Pascal).

    The basic concept of this argument is: “That there are obvious contradictions in the four biblical accounts of Jesus’ life does not prove one or more of them are false. If there was a car crash and four people witnessed it, you would expect them to give certain details differently. Or for one to mention details that the others leave out. That doesn’t mean one of them is lying.”

    The reason why this argument is self defeating should be self evident, but I’m gonna preemptively point it out anyway. Four witnesses giving four conflicting versions of an accident report is an example of human error (a concept which does not cohabitate well with innerrancy). The fact that human memory (not to mention oral tradition) is highly subjective is the exact reason why a court would consider video evidence stronger than “eyewitness” evidence. If there were differing testimonies between multiple witnesses to a crime or auto accident, then the positions and personal agendas of the witnesses would need to be taken into account in determining their veracity.

    If all four of your witnesses were attempting to sell a religion, or establish doctrine for a new religion, then their agendas would be self evident. But then what if they weren’t even witnesses? What if they didn’t ever actually claim to be “witnesses”? What if all four of your witnesses refused to sign their statements? What if three of your four eyewitnesses openly stated, “I didn’t actually get here till after the incident in question had already happened”? What if your first eyewitness openly wrote in his own book, “I didn’t actually get here until the ninth chapter. But all the important parts were described to me after they happened.” What if the second eyewitness said in his account, “I wasn’t actually here when any of this happened either. In fact I’m not even here right now. Hey, don’t put ‘Mark’ in your accident report , just say ‘some guy’ told you all this.”? What if your third eyewitness statement consisted of, “Don’t worry Theophilus, I’m a doctor. I just got here a moment ago, but I am fully apprised of the situation. Wait just a damn second here, you’re not Theophilus.”? What if your fourth eyewitness, the only one who was actually at the scene when the accident took place, appeared to have a head injury, and could not remember where he was or any of the details stated by the other three witnesses? And when the investigating officer asked him what had just happened, he simply started babbling incoherently about the word being with god, without giving any useful details about the actual accident?

    Before we could fully examine the four eye witness accounts of the life of christ, we would first need to examine the four witnesses themselves. We can get into the whole thing later, since as I said, a proper analysis involves a side-by-side comparison of about 80% of the text of the four books. So for now I’m just gonna give you a rough sketch and then you, me, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are gonna play a little bible jeopardy. And to keep this post concise there will be only two categories, “The Crucifixion” and “The Resurrection”.

    I have already mentioned how Matthew’s introduction in the ninth chapter of the book bearing his name would imply that he was not exactly an “eyewitness” to some of the most crucial things recorded in that book. If the book was written by Matthew then we know from it’s narrative that Matthew was not present during the most important parts of the things he records. And I am not just referring to the stuff from before Jesus meets Matthew. Where is Matthew during Jesus’ trial (or the transfiguration)? I don’t really see Matthew claiming that Matthew was invited on all those long walks Jesus took with Peter and John. Of course if the book was not written by the apostle Matthew, it is an anonymous work by one or more completely unknown authors. If this is the case then we have no reason to think this anonymous person or persons were actually following Jesus around and recording everything he said. I’m not trying to be too disrespectful about it, but if Matthew (the book) wasn’t written by Matthew (the apostle) then we don’t know who the f*ck wrote it, and it is essentially the bronze age equivalent of graffiti.

    We’ll cover Mark, Luke and John in a future post if you’re interested. But a couple more thoughts on the subject before we get to that game show I mentioned. None of the four gospels make any overt statement anywhere (there are textual clues) about who the authors are. They are called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But nowhere in Matthew does it say “this was written by Matthew”, etc.. Also, while there is an apostle in the gospels named Matthew (or possibly Levi), and a couple characters named John. Who the f*ck are Mark and Luke (yes I know there is sort of an actual answer to this, it’s a semi-rhetorical question), and where were they when Jesus was alive? There’s no Mark or Luke mentioned anywhere in any of the four gospels.

    Okay, enough rambling from me, let’s give some equal time to the good book. It’s mini-bible-study time...

    Posted 2 years ago #
  13. Nox
    Member

    (9) (part 2)

    (9.1) Did the sign posted on the cross include Jesus’ name?

    Matthew (27:37): “This is Jesus the king of the jews”

    Mark (15:26): “The king of the jews”

    Luke (23:38): “This is the king of the jews”

    John (19:19): “Jesus of Nazareth the king of the jews”

    While these are all reasonably close, no two gospels quite agree on what the accusation on the cross said. But that isn’t the only part of this scene that they disagree on. Almost every detail that is related by the gospel authors appears in at least two contradictory forms.

    (9.2) Did both the thieves crucified with Jesus revile him, or did one repent on the cross and receive a promise of redemption from Jesus?

    Matthew (27:44): “The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.”

    Mark (15:32): “They that were crucified with him reviled him.”

    Luke (23:39-43): “One of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

    John does not say anything about these 2 men except that they were crucified along with Jesus.

    John (19:18): “Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.”

    (9.3) What was Jesus given to drink, while on the cross?

    Matthew (27:34): “They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.”

    Mark (15:23): “And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.”

    Luke (23:36): “And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar.”

    John (19:29): “there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.”

    (9.4) What time of day did the crucifixion occur?

    Matthew (27:45-46): “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say my god my god why hast thou forsaken me.”

    Mark (15:33): “When the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.”

    Luke (23:44): “And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.”

    Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have Jesus on the cross at the sixth hour (noon). John has the sundial strike 12 while Jesus is in the judgment hall with Pilate.

    John (19:14): “And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!”

    (9.5) What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?

    Matthew (27:46): “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

    Mark (15:34): “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

    Luke (23:46): “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”

    John (19:30): “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”

    (9.6) Was Jesus killed by the romans or the jews? Was Jesus crucified on a cross, or hung from a tree?

    All 4 of the gospel accounts describe Jesus being crucified, yet in the book of Acts, both Peter and Paul state that his method of execution was hanging. And Peter is quoted as using the odd phrase “whom ye slew and hanged on a tree” while talking to the Pharisees.

    Acts 5:30
    The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

    Acts 10:39
    And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

    Acts 13:29
    And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

    While crosses were traditionally made from wood, it should be self evident that a cross and a tree are not the same thing.

    (9.7) What did the centurion in charge of the crucifixion say after Jesus died?

    Matthew (27:54): “Now then the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.”

    Mark (15:39): “And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.”

    Luke (23:47): “Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.”

    (9.8) Was there an earthquake coinciding with the death of Jesus? Was Jerusalem overrun with zombies?

    Matthew (27:51-53): “The veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”

    Matthew tells us these ghouls “appeared unto many”. They did not appear unto Mark, Luke, or John. Mark and Luke mention the veil being rent, but no earthquake or zombies. John makes no mention of any of this.

    (9.9) What did the roman soldiers do with Jesus’ clothes?

    Matthew (27:35): “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.” (on a side note this is one of those misquotes I was hinting at earlier)

    John (19:23-24): “The soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.”

    These may all seem like minor details. And to be fair, each of them individually, are relatively minor. But taken together these discrepancies give the impression that these four witnesses are describing four entirely separate executions.
    All of the new testament authors agree that this was one of the most important moments in all of human history. They just don’t seem to agree on what actually happened.

    Moving on to the resurrection…

    (9.10) Who discovered that Jesus’ body was not in the tomb?

    Matthew (28:1): “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.”

    Mark (16:1): “And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.”

    Luke (24:10): “It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.”

    John (20:1): “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.”

    (9.11) Was the stone still there when they got to the tomb?

    Matthew (28:2): “And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”

    Mark (16:4): “And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.”

    Luke (24:2): “And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.”

    John (20:1): “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.”

    (9.12) Were there angels at Jesus’ tomb? Where they actually angels or just men? Was there one or two of them? Were they inside or outside the tomb? Were they there before Mary (and pals?) arrived or did they appear after?

    Matthew (28:2): “And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”

    Mark (16:5): “And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.”

    Luke (24:3-4): “And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.”

    John (20:11-12): “But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.”

    (9.13) What (if anything) did the man/men/angel/angels say?

    Matthew (28:5-7): “And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.”

    Mark (15:6-7): “Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.”

    Luke (24:5-7): “And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.”

    John (20:13): “And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my LORD, and I know not where they have laid him.”

    (9.14) What did Mary do after she talked to the men/angels?

    Matthew (28:8): “And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.”

    Mark (16:8): “And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.”

    Luke (24:8-9): “And they remembered his words, and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.”

    John (20:14-15): “And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.”

    Okay. Mini-bible-study over.

    Note: All quotes that I have used here (or anywhere on this thread) are from the King James Version. If you check in a KJV you will find the exact words that you see in my posts. If you wish to use another version such as NIV or NKJV you will find that cleaned up language aside, the bible still says exactly what I quote it as saying.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  14. Professor Marvel
    Member

    Hats off, Nox. I cannot express how much I am enjoying following this powerful tour de force you are laying out. Needless to say, I'm copying and pasting it to file for future reference/use. Excellent, overwhelming stuff. Good job. Keep going as long as you like.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  15. Nox
    Member

    @ Relles Natas: Thank you. I appreciate the support. If anything I’ve posted here is useful to you, I would be quite happy to know I had helped to improve the marketplace of ideas in some way (btw your comment about sport and warfare in “1-0” inspired a pretty interesting discussion with one of my coworkers the other day). So cut/paste away, and if you feel that something I have put forward is worth reposting somewhere (in my words or yours) that would be a lovely vindication of my reasons for typing out all this sh*t in the first place.

    I should point out that many of the ideas I have put forward here are not originally mine (but I can honestly say I would never use an argument I do not both understand and agree with). Many of my arguments were initially put forward by Thomas Paine or some long dead professor in a german university, but like rap or quantum physics, biblical criticism is largely a cumulative effort.

    For example, my bible-game-show illustration above was partially inspired by a similar model of side-by-side gospel comparison used by John E. Remsberg in his book, The Christ.

    http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm

    You and some of the others here might find it an interesting read.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  16. UrsaMinor
    Member

    I see I was wise to step back and let someone more competent tackle the Biblical issues. I am in no way a Bible scholar, for the simple reason that I have rejected religion in general and not just Christianity, for reasons more fundamental than whether the accuracy of this or that particular religion's sacred text is in doubt. This is not to say that I haven't picked up some bits and pieces of the Bible debate from listening to other folks over the years, but I'm not the man to dissect a religious tract at length. I am more interested in knowing the details insofar as they contradict observed physical reality- but I've got that whole science geek thing going.

    Civil debate is good. Too many threads dissolve into acrimony. I am suspecting that GoatFeathers may be intimidated or overwhelmed by the sheer volume of Nox's output, however.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  17. Nox
    Member

    @UrsaMinor:

    “I am suspecting that GoatFeathers may be intimidated or overwhelmed by the sheer volume of Nox's output.”

    Yeah, that is a real concern that I am trying to be somewhat conscientious of (but I am only highjacking one thread). I just felt that the lack of volume (or lack of proper explanation) of my earlier post had caused some confusion about a couple of the questions I brought up. And while it’s sort of my fault that there are so many undefined topics at the table now, I wanted to make a point of shooting down a couple balloons, so we can get down to a more focused conversation on one or two key issues (I didn’t actually expect GoatFeathers to answer all ten).

    I’m going to pause really soon to give GoatFeathers and others a chance to respond. But there are still a couple more cards I’ll need to play before we can move to the next round.

    And on science vs. religion, I’m completely with you. I have a lot more confidence in science, and I try to bring a scientific approach to my greatest hobby (and the central theme of what I sort of consider my life’s work) which is the study of religion. And like any theologian or sci-fi geek, I’m well within comfortable territory getting into detailed analysis of fictional characters (I’ve had much more overwhelming discussions about Batman, Neo, and Tyler Durden than anything we’ve touched on here with Jesus). I have a healthy respect for science, and I’ve read some interesting books on science, but my formal education on the stuff you majored in goes no further than a couple classes in college at the 101 level. This is why I left my science argument at Mudskippers (which I still happen to think is a pretty f*cking solid argument). Basically I know enough that I was able to understand your earlier post about angular momentum, but not enough that I could have written it myself. Sure I could give you “gravity make hydrogen and dust and stuff stick together, form planet”. But “protostellar nebula”? Probably not.

    And (at least in my own experiments) I have always found that science vs. religion is actually a pretty difficult debate to make any real progress on. Especially when you get into science vs. christianity, as the christian religion sort of has a built in commandment to reject science. I think that when someone is arguing for the truth (or even better infallibility) of scripture then quoting scripture to them is not only fair game but a pretty effective way of cutting through the gordian knot of genesis vs. abiogenesis.

    @ GoatFeathers:

    I really do hope I am not making you feel intimidated or overwhelmed. That is honestly not what I’m going for. Well I’m sort of going for overwhelmed. But I’m not trying to drown you out or anything.

    And don’t feel like you need to answer all of this. I realize I am hitting you with a huge wall-o-text and I am sorry about that. You are under no obligation whatsoever to respond to any or all of this (I hope that you do however). I actually wasn’t even expecting you to address all of my original questions. They were just intended as an illustration of the overall lack of consistency in the bible. I am glad that you decided to approach all of them. As I said, I have not had enough opportunities to interact with christians who will attempt to defend their faith reasonably.

    You exceeded my initially low expectations and now I am curious whether you will exceed slightly higher expectations. But please don’t feel like I’m trying to pressure you or define some narrow set of conditions under which I would respect your right to your beliefs. But I have a deep fascination with why it is that people believe certain things. And this opportunity to put a real live christian in a lab and test him has already taught me a few interesting things.

    I would actually consider it the best possible outcome if you showed back up in a couple days with your own wall-o-text addressing and challenging each and every one of my points (I like having my points challenged, it makes them sharper). But as I said you are under no obligation to do any of that. And it would probably be more efficient if we just drop or postpone a few of the original ten so we can focus on one thing at a time.

    Either way this has already been a learning experience for me. I hope it has for you as well. And I hope that like myself, you are considering this more like a friendly game of chess than a crucifixion.

    I’m gonna put up responses to your responses for (10) and (11) a little later. And then I’m finally gonna shut up for awhile and eagerly await your response.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  18. Nox
    Member

    (10)

    “A brief reminder about what happened to Jesus or anyone else that went though 39 lashes by a Roman guard.”

    I’m gonna go ahead and give you this one. You make a good point about how recognizable someone would be who had gone through a heavy flogging and crucifixion. If I wanted to I might point out that the romans mostly flogged people from behind and only some random tails would have hit Jesus’ face (and at least a few almost certainly would have). But I don’t think this is worth arguing for, and there is another elephant in this particular room that I feel a much more urgent need to shoot and harvest for ivory.

    “For all we know hundreds of people saw the resurrected Jesus, but were not mentioned because it's not relevant to what the writer is trying to get across.”

    And right here is where you hit on my original intent in bringing up the resurrection. The original intent of Mark does not appear to rely much on the number of witnesses to the resurrection (it doesn’t even rely all that heavily on the idea that the resurrection even happened). But with Matthew and Luke, the historicity of the resurrection is somewhat central to any larger point they might have been trying to make. And if the risen Christ is not a well verified fact then almost every word in John would be completely meaningless.

    But there is an important distinction between the various messages of these four (technically a lot more than four but we’ll get to that) anonymous christians from competing sects in the first and second centuries, and the conflated overall message that christian tradition has twisted out of these four diverse books (i.e. narration from the synaptics, dialogue from John) in an attempt to portray them as much more harmonius than they are. Almost every movie ever made about Jesus (not to mention that stupid picture bible I had as a child) makes a point of showing Jesus strolling openly through the streets of Jerusalem, proudly displaying his undeadness to the very people who thought they had just killed him (that picture bible I mentioned actually had a picture of a pharisee pointing at zombie Jesus with an incredulous look as if to say “what the f*ck, I thought we killed that guy”).

    It is not a coincidence that this image of Jesus’ post resurrection appearances has dominated mainstream christian thought. This visualization came about because it is imperative to the claims of christianity (well pauline christianity at least). The issue is not merely Paul’s claim about 500+ witnesses. At stake is the credibility of literally every statement ever attributed to Paul (he does have a pretty obvious motive for making this clearly false statement).

    If Jesus did not appear to even one objective witness (objective in this context means someone who is not already one of his apostles), and no source aside from Paul ever claims that he did (and a couple of the gospels explicitly state that he did not appear to other witnesses),then one of the foundational cards in the card house that is christian theology would simply disappear.

    Christianity as probably envisioned by Jesus and Peter was a particular take on first century judaism that infused Moses with a little Plato, and was probably never intended by Jesus to spread very far beyond his original followers. But in Paul’s take on Jesus, he was a messiah to jews and gentiles. A messiah for the whole world (including one particular city in Asia Minor known as Corinth which for some strange reason Jesus never actually visited himself). And a dozen or so witnesses just would not do. Keep in mind here that Paul’s intended audience probably would not have had access to any of the four canonical gospels (or personal access to any of the alleged witnesses). Paul would surely have known that his claim to the corinthians would be both vaguely comforting and completely unfalsifiable.

    My goal in bringing up this particular point is to debunk Paul’s version of christianity (we can get to Jesus’ version later after I’ve proved it is different than Paul’s), and in Paul’s version of christianity, the number of witnesses is actually quite crucial.

    But if you want a less overwhelming version of the central point of the last eight paragraphs, it would go like this. Paul never met Jesus.

    Now to bring this case to a close, I’m gonna pass the mic to Thomas Paine for a minute.

    “As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

    No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

    It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

    When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.”
    -Thomas Paine
    The Age of Reason

    Posted 2 years ago #
  19. Nox
    Member

    (11)

    Okay so I had this whole essay planned out for this one but I’ll save it since this whole thing has gotten a little out of hand (on a positive note I think I’m over my writer’s block). Your answer to (11) was pretty good, and I phrased the question badly anyway. So we can just consider that one solved, and move on.

    Again, I sincerely hope I have not made you feel too much like a “whipping boy”. And I hope I have not chased you off with all this. My goal is not to end the debate. My goal is to begin a more robust debate. So I’m gonna stop talking now and eagerly await your answer to any/all/none of my stated points (or whatever else you would like to talk about). In this spirit, let me share just a few more words from Isaiah in closing.

    “Come now, and let us reason together.”

    Your move my friend.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  20. UrsaMinor
    Member

    @Nox:

    Yes, there is a limit to how far a scientific argument, no matter how well-grounded in theory and experiment, will carry with a nontechnical audience. Claims against evolution are frequently put forth by people who don't have the slightest understanding of what evolution actually is (a change in gene frequencies in a population over time, nothing more, nothing less)- and they're unable to see their strawman for what it is. It's even difficult to get concepts across when the audience has a general liberal arts education and is predisposed to be sympathetic, thanks to the huge number of sound-bite oversimplifications and popular misconceptions about science floating around. Probability theory is another critical area where most people have no training, and have no idea how to correctly apply the little bits and pieces they do know.

    Productive science/religion debates are difficult because they often hold to different standards of evidence- e.g., revelation and belief vs. observation and experiment. And nobody I know on the religion side of the argument seems to get the point when they crow "You can't prove the supernatural doesn't exist, since it's not of the material world!" and I point out that if it existed and didn't interact with the material world, they would have no way of knowing about it, so where would their evidence for it come from? If it did exist and interact with the physical world, we could observe this and prove its existence. Once you get into the realm of "Sure it exists, but can't be observed or measured", you are into the realm of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and anything goes. But somehow the religious debater's own particular ideas about the invisible and the unmeasurable are deemed by them to be sensible, obvious and correct.

    I've never lost sleep over the argument that "the origin of the Universe is unknowable because you can't peer back in time past the Big Bang." This may prove to be true. But the origin of a god that created the Universe is equally unknowable, and adds an arbitrary and unnecessary step. Likewise, claiming the eternal existence of said god to avoid the problem of its origin is less satisfactory than positing the eternal existence of the Universe itself for the same reason. That, I think, is ultimately where science and religion part.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  21. GoatFeathers
    Member

    @Nox

    There is a lot to chew on here. So if it takes me time to get around to everything, don't be surprised.

    1) I'm still looking into the magnetic braking aspect. In it's current state magnetic braking can only account for about 0.1% of the mass loss needed to reduce the angular momentum. (As a side note I was surprised to discover that the mass loss needed to make magnetic braking work was only 10%, so my original assumption about how much mass would need to be ejected was pretty far off base.) However, the problem with looking at the current state of affairs is that as the angular momentum is reduced, so would the magnetic force also be reduced (assuming that at least some of the magnetic field of the sun is coming from the rotation of the plasm inside), so that we would expect the magnetic force at this time to be weaker. So the rabbit that I've been chasing is this: Can it be shown mathematically that magnetic braking (taking into account the reducing magnetic field) can account for the reduction in angular momentum in the time provided? If anyone knows of any works in this area, please let me know. (But it needs to have the math with it, otherwise it's just speculation.)

    10) "Christianity ... was probably never intended by Jesus to spread very far beyond his original followers."

    Jesus, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:4

    Jesus again, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." Mark 16:15

    Thomas Paine was right about this: Paul's testamony is not, can not be, my testamony. Frankly, have you seen Paul's testamony? I'm not sure that I'd want it. Beaten, stoned (the kind with rocks, not drugs), shipwrecked, snake bit, jailed, and so on. The point is that my father's faith eventually has to become my faith. There has to be some ownership of what we believe and why. So if I belive because Paul said so, then it is still my fathers faith (even if the fathers is 2000 years removed). I don't believe because someone said to believe (though I did at first), but I believe because God has shown himself to be real in my life. Now I know in general what atheist think about personal experience, but truthfully, all of life is personal experience. What is an experiment if not one scientist personal experience? It is personal experience that is measurable and repeatable, yes, but it is still personal experience.

    I've got to get ready for work, so I'll try to finish this thought later...

    Posted 2 years ago #
  22. Kodie
    Member

    I don't believe because someone said to believe (though I did at first), but I believe because God has shown himself to be real in my life. Now I know in general what atheist think about personal experience, but truthfully, all of life is personal experience. What is an experiment if not one scientist personal experience? It is personal experience that is measurable and repeatable, yes, but it is still personal experience.

    A lot of this discussion has been interesting to me, if not a little too deep in areas I don't have too much prior knowledge of. However, this comment sticks out.

    At first, you were taught to believe in your father's god. Later, some personal experience "proved" your father to be right as far as you're concerned. I'm curious how you made the leap from your father's god to your own god, and why you're not surprised that it's the same god. Comparing your personal experience to scientific experimentation and research is also weird. In science, one can note a cause and effect, repeat it and show it to other people who can repeat it. In your personal experience, god has shown himself only to you to be real, or essentially, that you have arbitrarily attributed an effect to the cause of your choosing. Conveniently, that cause was planted in your mind at an earlier time, so that once you had your personal experience of god, you have come to think of it as your own idea all along.

    Here is an example: (since I was not raised in a religious household, it will not be a religious example -- and I can't think too hard this early, so I will make something up). I was raised to believe that black cats were bad luck. Shortly after I moved out on my own, I acquired a black cat for a pet, and although she was a very nice cat as long as she lived, I had many years of bad luck -- bad relationships, one actually crazy boyfriend, a traumatizing near burglary (and who knows what else?; therein, the trauma of 'what if' and a general lack of feeling safe in my home), a fire in my apartment building, an abortion, a series of bad, dead-end jobs and terrible bosses and mean and stupid co-workers punctuated by long periods of unemployment and depression and debt. Several of these events compounded caused me to move back in with my parents THREE times. After my cat died 5 years ago, stuff like that stopped happening.

    Well, they didn't really, but they stopped socking me as frequently and I guess I got used to things and grew more resilient and/or able to experience enough good things to offset the terrible. Moving helped. Now, was it the black cat's fault? My personal experience may cause me to say, you know, my mom was right about this black cat business. It's gray and white and orange cats from here on out.

    Another example would be masturbation. Yes. Now everyone knows that if you wank, you'll go blind, right? Now, most people auto-pleasure, and some of them actually have gone blind. I wonder how many of those blind people believe it to have been that they masturbated at some time. It is quite definitely for some other reason they've gone blind, maybe diabetes or staring at the sun or some other affliction that is scientifically known to cause blindness. However, some may actually, falsely, attribute the cause to masturbation because that's what they've been told, and when they went blind, their personal experience caused them to fill in the cause with what they've been taught. Does that make sense to you?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  23. UrsaMinor
    Member

    @GoatFeathers:
    Here’s a link to a recent paper on the topic of magnetic braking and angular momentum in collapsing protostellar nebulae. I haven’t figured out how to paste a hyperlink here, so you’ll have to cut and paste into your browser. Or just go to Google and type in “magnetic breaking protoplanetary disk”- the pdf of interest pops up as the first entry in the list.

    http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/rmaa/RMxAC..36/PDF/RMxAC..36_dgalli.pdf

    (Edit: apparently embedding a link is automatic)

    I don’t know if this is precisely what you were looking for, but it refers to other papers if you want to explore it further, and there are equations aplenty for you to peruse. But like Nox, I’m curious as to why you think this has a bearing on the question of whether there were days and nights on the Earth before the sun was made. It is well-established, first by theory and prediction and then by observation and confirmation of those predictions, that the planetary formation phase doesn’t start until the central star has already ignited nuclear reactions in its core and begun to shine. The gas and dust particles that make up the circumstellar protoplanetary disk take some time to clump together to form the planetesimal swarm (although this is almost certainly not be the only way to build a planet, especially if we are talking about big ones like Jupiter, since gas giants may form in dense parts of the disk from local instabilities and begin accreting dust and gas directly, long before the planetesimals form and begin building rocky terrestrial planets like Earth. But in any case, the formation of gas giants, while it may be rapid compared to the formation of terrestrial planets, seems to occur after stellar ignition as well).

    Yes, many scientific observations are personal experiences. But many are not. Various SETI projects, and the Hipparchos and Tycho astronomical surveys, and the detection of extrasolar planets, and observations of solar neutrino flux, are all done by unmanned instruments. The data collection is strictly mechanical and unbiased by any observer. But even for measurements that are made directly by people, the key point is that they must be measurable and repeatable by others, or they are rejected. A single experiment or series of experiments by a single scientist may support a hypothesis, but it is never taken as confirmation of that hypothesis until it is repeated independently by others. I suspect that your argument is something along the lines of “Similar personal religious experiences occur in different people, therefore, like scientific observations, they are measurable and repeatable, and must reflect some underlying reality.” I agree with this as far as it goes, but a proper analysis will look at and control for variables like culture and personal religious beliefs of the subject. It is well established that humans are extremely good at seeing what they expect or want to see (especially when the data are ambiguous or simply random). This is sometimes an issue in science, to be sure, but science has a robust system for weeding out these cases of confirmation bias or just plain errors on the part of the observer. Religion, so far as I know, does not.

    None of us experiences reality directly. We experience things indirectly, as the nerve impulses are conveyed to the brain and their patterns are interpreted. More importantly, the “reality” that we experience in the brain- and this is a very important point- is not always constructed from external environmental stimuli. A human being has no internal way of distinguishing whether a particular mental state or perception of “reality” is an accurate representation of the external physical world around him, or a internal neurological process that is being mistaken for actual experience. They feel exactly the same to the observer. Dreams are the canonical example of this, and the psychological literature is crammed with examples of ways that people mistake internal states for external ones. Absent clear, measurable, repeatable evidence for the presence of a deity that does not rely on direct human perception, there is no reason to suspect that religious experiences are anything more than internal mental states or examples of confirmation bias.

    So, to sum up my points:
    1. There is as yet no independent, repeatable demonstration or evidence that a deity exists.
    2. Internal human mental states are frequently not dependent on external reality.
    3. Religious experiences, whatever else they might theoretically be, are also internal human mental states.

    So, personal experiences of this sort do nothing to confirm the existence of a deity. You need something more robust. To draw a parallel, millions of people dream every night that they can fly and it feels totally real while they are dreaming (the “flying” dream is well-documented as a common experience in the psychological literature and it happens to me personally all the time), but this is not confirmation that I, or anyone else, have flown or can actually fly. But the most important point I can make with this example is that there is absolutely no reason for suspecting that it *could be* confirmation for the reality of unassisted human flight in the first place, because we have no independent, repeatable observations of unassisted human flight.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  24. Nox
    Member

    @GoatFeathers

    "There is a lot to chew on here. So if it takes me time to get around to everything, don't be surprised."

    Yeah. Take your time. Sorry to blitz you like that, I just wanted to make sure all my original points were stated beyond any possible ambiguity. May have gone a little overboard on that score. And like I said, none of this is mandatory (but I really would like to see your response to everything I said), you can hit any/all/none of these issues or we can talk about something else if you'd like (maybe that discussion of atheism and destiny we both touched on earlier).

    Anyway I'll stop interrupting you now. I'm actually going to be away from my keyboard for a few days, but I'll be checking this thread on my phone. So, yeah, take your time, I'll be back on sunday night. And maybe you and Ursa will have hammered out this magnetic braking controversy once and for all.

    @UrsaMinor:

    "This is sometimes an issue in science, to be sure, but science has a robust system for weeding out these cases of confirmation bias or just plain errors on the part of the observer."

    One example that kept jumping into my head while reading your last post (there may be better examples) was the "cold fusion" hoax in the late 80's.

    http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19890508,00.html
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,957672,00.html

    From the Time article "Putting the heat on cold fusion (05-15-89)":

    "The spring meeting of the American Physical Society is normally a cool scientific congregation, but last week's gathering of 1,500 physicists in Baltimore was more like an unusually hot celebrity roast. This elite clan convened a special panel to comment on the instant fame of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, two chemists who had dared to venture from their field into the private domain of nuclear physicists. Less than six weeks earlier, Pons, of the University of Utah, and Fleischmann, of Britain's University of Southampton, claimed to have achieved nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun, at room temperature. Because the experiment produced much more energy than it consumed, said the chemists, it could lead to the development of an almost limitless power source. Physicists were skeptical, but they scurried to their labs to see if the seemingly impossible could be true.

    In Baltimore the physicists proclaimed their answer: no way. After weeks of thorough experimentation, researchers from numerous prestigious institutions, including M.I.T., Caltech, Yale and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, reported that they had found no evidence of "cold" fusion. The scientists seemed incensed that they had wasted their time trying to replicate an error-filled experiment and chided the University of Utah for requesting a $25 million federal grant based on sloppy research. Said Caltech physicist Steven Koonin: "We are suffering from the incompetence and perhaps the delusions of Professors Pons and Fleischmann." When the nine members of the cold-fusion review panel were asked if they thought the Utah experiment was a dead issue, eight raised their hands. The only holdout was Johann Rafelski of the University of Arizona, who did not support Pons and Fleischmann but said he would nonetheless withhold judgment.

    The physicists offered several theories about where the Utah experiments had gone wrong. Pons and Fleischmann claimed that they had caused the nuclei of deuterium atoms, a heavy form of hydrogen, to fuse together to form helium, thus releasing radiation and heat energy. But, the physicists suggested, the radiation detected might have come from radon that was already present in the laboratory's air. The helium reported could also have seeped into the apparatus from the air."

    Posted 2 years ago #
  25. UrsaMinor
    Member

    Ah, cold fusion! The consensus is that it is a dead issue. But note two key things about the process:

    1. Other scientists actually went to the trouble to try to duplicate the experiments themselves, instead of simply dismissing it out of hand as fantasy. I don't know the details, but I would suspect that the teams that tried to replicate the experiment included both doubters and supporters, with different axes to grind. Yet they all converged on the same answer.

    2. There was a strong economic incentive for cold fusion to be found true (i.e., a textbook opportunity for confirmation bias to rear its ugly head). And it may have done so with the original experimenters. The benefits to society could have been staggering if it were true. Yet the final consensus was negative. Nobody outside of the Pons and Fleischmann lab, supporter or doubter, was able to make it work as described. Whatever their personal biases or stakes in the matter were, everyone who tried to replicate the process agreed that cold fusion, if it exists, does not work as advertised. One might argue that the doubters far outnumbered the supporters and simply suppressed any positive results, but then we're into the loony realm of conspiracy theory. But suppose for a moment that it were true, and bias won out over objectivity in this round. In that case, cold fusion won't just go away. Someday, somebody else is going to run an experiment and get results that are going to make them scratch their heads, and the idea will be reexamined. Science makes mistakes, but is self-correcting.

    I also note the sloppiness of the Time journalist. Cold fusion, as envisioned by Pons and Fleischmann, is not "the process that powers the sun". It would have been a class of fusion reaction, yes, but not the same fusion reaction that is happening in the sun's core. If you want to get that vague, the industrial process that produces fertilizer from nitrogen gas in the air is the same process that your body uses to derive energy from carbohydrates in your diet- i.e., they're both examples of chemical reactions.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  26. GoatFeathers
    Member

    @UrsaMinor

    Unfortunately this is not exactly what I was looking for. The author states in the summary, "one now needs to solve the full dynamic problem of magnetic field dissipation and formation of a centrifugally supported protoplanetary disk in a self-consistent way." This is exactly what I am looking for. However, he does point to the work of Machida, Inutsuka, & Matsumoto, so I'll look into them when I get a chance after work.

    I suspect that your argument is something along the lines of “Similar personal religious experiences occur in different people, therefore, like scientific observations, they are measurable and repeatable, and must reflect some underlying reality.”

    Actually, I was thinking along different lines. Something along the lines of "How then can we expect science to find an infinite God? How would you measure the infinite?" I'm not sure how much that would help my case, ;) but it is what was running around my mind.

    @Nox

    I did sort of expect a blitz, just not all from one person. :) I'll get to it piece by piece, and feel free to jump at any time to comment, question, etc.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  27. Ty
    Moderator

    But the corona of the sun is 2 million kelvins, and the surface of the sun is only 6 thousand kelvins. This proves that that the core of the sun must be cooling it down, therefore, cold fusion.

    That's logic.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  28. Ty
    Moderator

    "Something along the lines of "How then can we expect science to find an infinite God? How would you measure the infinite?"

    Meaningless questions. You might was well ask, "how can we expect science to find an infinite tortilla?"

    Science's inability to discover something is NOT evidence for its existence.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  29. Kodie
    Member

    If God existed, why is he so elusive materially? He's all, like, trust me, I exist, and if you happen to have some explainable emotion or coincidence in your life, you may attribute this to the invisible hand of a deity, but that's ass-backwards even for a god. He's famous because people keep talking about him, events they attribute to him (usually in a personal and positive perspective) but that doesn't mean there is any such thing. If you consider the whole of humanity and what little your god seems to care for their well-being, and then rationalize that away because he's too perfect to have any bad reasons, and if you go back to the beginning of when people started chattering about this invisible maker, you can hardly believe he is anything but pretend, an excuse, whatever you want him to be. Whatever personal experience you can have for the presence of a deity who can't be measured is imagination; you filled in a reason for a personal emotion that you personally could not explain another way. And why god? Why your god? Because that's the one everyone around you was talking about. They talked about it so much that when you had a personal experience of god's presence, you used the convenient and popular god to explain it, and not some other explanation, scientific or even another god-being.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  30. UrsaMinor
    Member

    "Something along the lines of "How then can we expect science to find an infinite God? How would you measure the infinite?"

    I agree with Ty. The question, as framed, is essentially meaningless.

    I will say, though, that if an infinite God had finite interactions with the physical world, science could certainly find and measure those, and you'd have all the proof you want.

    On the other hand, if an infinite God existed and did not have finite interactions with the physical world, there would be no reason to suspect its existence in the first place.

    Either there are detectable interactions of the Divine with the physical world, or there are not. If there are not, then from the human standpoint the existence of God is totally irrelevant. A noninteractive God (and its very existence) is a nonconcern.

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous1234…9Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.