Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

continued - Biblical Infanticide

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by whag View Post

    Meanwhile, literalists have to pretend that 3,000 people could fit on a roof and watch as a man takes down the central support pillars of a temple.
    Well 3000 people on the roof of the temple probably helped to collapse the durn thing.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      As I noted earlier, the premise of whag's argument is nothing more than an appeal to incredulity.
      in·cre·du·li·ty
      /ˌinkrəˈdo͞olədē/

      noun
      1. the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.


      Your rejection of Mormon miracles is your stubborn unwillingness to believe. I explained why it’s likely a folktale not recorded history while you’ve ignored all those points.

      BTW, that “incredulity” bit comes from Richard Dawkins, which is ironic since it perfectly describes your stance on evolution and explains why you bailed on that discussion:

      Never say, and never take seriously anyone who says, 'I cannot believe that so-and-so could have evolved by gradual selection.' I have dubbed this kind of fallacy 'the Argument from Personal Incredulity.' Time and again, it has proven the prelude to an intellectual banana-skin experience.
      Richard Dawkins


      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by whag View Post

        in·cre·du·li·ty
        /ˌinkrəˈdo͞olədē/

        noun
        1. the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.


        Your rejection of Mormon miracles is your stubborn unwillingness to believe. I explained why it’s likely a folktale not recorded history while you’ve ignored all those points.

        BTW, that “incredulity” bit comes from Richard Dawkins, which is ironic since it perfectly describes your stance on evolution and explains why you bailed on that discussion:

        Never say, and never take seriously anyone who says, 'I cannot believe that so-and-so could have evolved by gradual selection.' I have dubbed this kind of fallacy 'the Argument from Personal Incredulity.' Time and again, it has proven the prelude to an intellectual banana-skin experience.
        Richard Dawkins

        As I already noted, your "reasons" for claiming that the story of Samson is a myth are premised on your own personal incredulity (and other nonsense, such as your claim that oral tradition is synonymous with myth), so beyond pointing out that your argument is illogical, there's nothing for me address.

        Regarding Dawkins, I can not find any source that attributes that quote to him (your link presents a list of quotes, but I did not see that particular quote, and multiple internet searches returned no results), so I do not believe he originated the term in question. Regardless, I do not disbelieve evolutionary theory because of personal incredulity. In fact, I don't disbelieve evolutionary theory. There is good evidence for it. There is also good evidence for creationism -- in many cases, it's the same evidence -- so, all things considered, I don't lean strongly either way. I suppose you could call me an origins agnostic.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

          As I already noted, your "reasons" for claiming that the story of Samson is a myth are premised on your own personal incredulity (and other nonsense, such as your claim that oral tradition is synonymous with myth), so beyond pointing out that your argument is illogical, there's nothing for me address.
          You ignored each point that can’t be traced to mere incredulity in lazy fashion. You project your own incredulity onto me, while ignoring your default disbelief of all non-biblical miracles.

          You then lied and claimed I said “oral tradition is synonymous with myth,” when what I really said was:

          Oral tradition is often contrived to make stories inspiring and entertaining.


          Resist the temptation to lie about that again.

          Moving on, here’s a miracle-free example of a dubious event from Judges 3:

          Shamgar
          31 After Ehud came Shamgar son of Anath, who struck down six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad. He too saved Israel.


          One man with a pointy stick versus 600 armed men. That’s embellishment, since even 20 armed men could easily overpower a man with a spear.

          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          I do not disbelieve evolutionary theory because of personal incredulity. In fact, I don't disbelieve evolutionary theory. There is good evidence for it.
          “It” means you acknowledge changes within species, not speciation. You’re literally on record saying speciation isn’t supported, then ignoring everyone’s response about genetics and the fossil record frame-rate.

          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          There is also good evidence for creationism -- in many cases, it's the same evidence -- so, all things considered, I don't lean strongly either way.
          As has been pointed out to you, creationism can mean everything from YEC (Answers in Genesis) to Intelligent Design (Discovery Institute). That you don’t know this is an admission you’ve merely skimmed random articles, failing to even note ONE piece of evidence coming from those sources. Every time I asked for some kind of clarification as to what you meant by your oft-repeated claim of “evidentiary equilibrium,” you made an excuse for not providing it.

          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          I suppose you could call me an origins agnostic.
          That’s giving you too much credit. True agnostics have reasoned opinions, meaning they can at least give reasons for holding their fence-sitting positions. What you did was introduce well-worn creationist arguments that were answered decades ago.

          For instance:

          What is up for debate is the belief that these small adaptations can eventually cause one species of animal to "evolve" into a completely different species.


          You then ignored when people respectfully explained why that point was wrong. Speciation isn’t up for debate any more than geochronology is up for debate.

          If you can explain what you even mean by “creationism,” I can only assume personal incredulity fuels your skepticism on the actual theory of evolution. At least, you can tell me where you fall between AiG (no deep time) and ID (deep time).






          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post

            Well 3000 people on the roof of the temple probably helped to collapse the durn thing.
            Chinese steel rebar + thousands of Philistines + one angry Nazirite = temple roof collapse

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by whag View Post

              Chinese steel rebar + thousands of Philistines + one angry Nazirite = temple roof collapse
              There are skyscrapers made out of wood. If the Koca Katran, a cedar in Turkey, is anything to go by with a circumference of 27ft, two such trees probably could support the 135 tons 3k people at 90lbs would generate. Samson's strength in the narrative would not be due to "one angry Nazarite".
              Last edited by Diogenes; 11-14-2023, 10:25 PM.
              P1) If , then I win.

              P2)

              C) I win.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by whag View Post

                Chinese steel rebar + thousands of Philistines + one angry Nazirite = temple roof collapse
                Pssst....Some here really believe the Samson legend happened exactly as their Bible tells them it did.
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by whag View Post

                  You ignored each point that can’t be traced to mere incredulity in lazy fashion. You project your own incredulity onto me, while ignoring your default disbelief of all non-biblical miracles.

                  You then lied and claimed I said “oral tradition is synonymous with myth,” when what I really said was:

                  Oral tradition is often contrived to make stories inspiring and entertaining.


                  Resist the temptation to lie about that again.

                  Moving on, here’s a miracle-free example of a dubious event from Judges 3:

                  Shamgar
                  31 After Ehud came Shamgar son of Anath, who struck down six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad. He too saved Israel.


                  One man with a pointy stick versus 600 armed men. That’s embellishment, since even 20 armed men could easily overpower a man with a spear.



                  “It” means you acknowledge changes within species, not speciation. You’re literally on record saying speciation isn’t supported, then ignoring everyone’s response about genetics and the fossil record frame-rate.



                  As has been pointed out to you, creationism can mean everything from YEC (Answers in Genesis) to Intelligent Design (Discovery Institute). That you don’t know this is an admission you’ve merely skimmed random articles, failing to even note ONE piece of evidence coming from those sources. Every time I asked for some kind of clarification as to what you meant by your oft-repeated claim of “evidentiary equilibrium,” you made an excuse for not providing it.



                  That’s giving you too much credit. True agnostics have reasoned opinions, meaning they can at least give reasons for holding their fence-sitting positions. What you did was introduce well-worn creationist arguments that were answered decades ago.

                  For instance:

                  What is up for debate is the belief that these small adaptations can eventually cause one species of animal to "evolve" into a completely different species.


                  You then ignored when people respectfully explained why that point was wrong. Speciation isn’t up for debate any more than geochronology is up for debate.

                  If you can explain what you even mean by “creationism,” I can only assume personal incredulity fuels your skepticism on the actual theory of evolution. At least, you can tell me where you fall between AiG (no deep time) and ID (deep time).
                  You would do well to remember what you actually wrote before falsely accusing me of lying:

                  Originally posted by whag View Post
                  Exactly, it’s strongman myth not an eyewitness account. It’s an oral story that was told and embellished for hundreds for years before being written.
                  Your implication is obvious, that oral tradition is synonymous with myth, or perhaps you simply didn't express yourself as clearly as you thought you did. Either way, I don't expect you will apologize, and that's fine. I'm content just setting the matter straight.

                  As for Shamgar, nowhere does the Bible say that he killed 600 Philistines in the same battle. There's no reason to think that wasn't a recounting of his entire career as a judge of Israel.

                  And now you wish to derail the thread into a creation vs. evolution debate, which I have no interest in perusing, so it seems we are done here.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by whag View Post

                    You ignored each point that can’t be traced to mere incredulity in lazy fashion. You project your own incredulity onto me, while ignoring your default disbelief of all non-biblical miracles.

                    You then lied and claimed I said “oral tradition is synonymous with myth,” when what I really said was:

                    Oral tradition is often contrived to make stories inspiring and entertaining.


                    Resist the temptation to lie about that again.

                    You also said,

                    Originally posted by whag View Post

                    Judges is more myth than history, having been crafted over the centuries through oral tradition.
                    So MM wasn't lying. He just synthesized your various claims into his personal opinion of what you were claiming.



                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                      You would do well to remember what you actually wrote before falsely accusing me of lying:


                      Your implication is obvious, that oral tradition is synonymous with myth, or perhaps you simply didn't express yourself as clearly as you thought you did. Either way, I don't expect you will apologize, and that's fine. I'm content just setting the matter straight.
                      I’m sorry if I implied that Samson is 100% myth. I should have been emphatic that Samson could possibly have been a real judge but with embellished feats and a contrived arc to make the story compact and impactful. This is the consensus of scholars, including many Christians without anti-miracle bias.

                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      As for Shamgar, nowhere does the Bible say that he killed 600 Philistines in the same battle. There's no reason to think that wasn't a recounting of his entire career as a judge of Israel.
                      Wrong. An oxgoad isn’t a war weapon. It’s meant to convey one battle in which the warrior accomplishes an amazing feat with an improvised instrument. A collective tally would involve actual battle weapons like swords and such.

                      It’s a trope that the Samson jawbone story mirrors, since neither is an unprocessed equine jawbone a war weapon:

                      15 Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men.

                      16 Then Samson said,

                      “With a donkey’s jawbone
                      I have made donkeys of them.[a]
                      With a donkey’s jawbone
                      I have killed a thousand men
                      .”


                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      And now you wish to derail the thread into a creation vs. evolution debate, which I have no interest in perusing, so it seems we are done here.
                      You’ve only done light reading on the subject, so that’s okay.
                      Last edited by whag; 11-15-2023, 10:48 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                        You also said,



                        So MM wasn't lying. He just synthesized your various claims into his personal opinion of what you were claiming.

                        You’re right. Mountain Man, I apologize for the accusation.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by whag View Post

                          You’re right. Mountain Man, I apologize for the accusation.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                            There are skyscrapers made out of wood. If the Koca Katran, a cedar in Turkey, is anything to go by with a circumference of 27ft, two such trees probably could support the 135 tons 3k people at 90lbs would generate. Samson's strength in the narrative would not be due to "one angry Nazarite".
                            1. You missed the anachronistic jest of Chinese steel rebar.
                            2. The issue isn’t roof strength but a mistranslation of the proposition “on.”
                            3. Obviously, 3,000 people wouldn’t have a view of the temple’s central support pillars.

                            Even tabby is willing to concede 2 and 3.

                            BTW, your cedar roof proposal makes no sense. Either you’re envisioning a roof made of two whole tree trunks, or you’re describing something else that I can’t picture. What’s your architectural vision here?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by whag View Post

                              1. You missed the anachronistic jest of Chinese steel rebar.
                              2. The issue isn’t roof strength but a mistranslation of the proposition “on.”
                              3. Obviously, 3,000 people wouldn’t have a view of the temple’s central support pillars.

                              Even tabby is willing to concede 2 and 3.

                              BTW, your cedar roof proposal makes no sense. Either you’re envisioning a roof made of two whole tree trunks, or you’re describing something else that I can’t picture. What’s your architectural vision here?
                              Your antipathy is towards [the text itself], not merely regarding roof strength, misinterpretation, [or interpolation.] No where did I say a "cedar roof", merely that the two pillars would be the primary support. Any viewpoint would depend on the construction of the temple, including permanent and temporary structures.
                              Last edited by Diogenes; 11-15-2023, 11:29 AM.
                              P1) If , then I win.

                              P2)

                              C) I win.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                                Your antipathy is towards a literal interpretation, not merely roof strength or misinterpretation, No where did I say a "cedar roof", merely that the two pillars would be the primary support. Any viewpoint would depend on the construction of the temple, including permanent and temporary structures.
                                In that case, your comment makes even less sense. No one’s come close to suggesting two lateral beams couldn’t support a heavy roof. What’s at issue is “line of sight.”

                                You are too dense to follow this discussion. I do not permit you to speak here. You are to remain silent.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 02-15-2024, 12:52 PM
                                74 responses
                                309 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 02-06-2024, 01:46 PM
                                60 responses
                                325 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 06:06 AM
                                144 responses
                                722 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-03-2024, 09:07 AM
                                62 responses
                                318 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post eider
                                by eider
                                 
                                Started by whag, 01-26-2024, 01:08 PM
                                53 responses
                                311 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X