flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > 2 + 2 is &, my bible told me so... (Remotely hosted imag

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
However, there is a more serious obstacle. Some religions, including some christians, believe that GOD itself, i.e. supernatural being, physically WROTE some particular "holy" book, i.e. physically took pen to paper, and created something from nothing. Most educated folks, on the other hand, realize that the "Bible", or "Koran", or "Torah", et cetera, merely represent musings of various poets, philosophers, and political figures of yesteryear, not divine writing.


Actually, many of us NOT SO "educated folks" believe that God oversaw the writing of the Tora through these things called "profits." (Sp?) Anyway, the bible was an extension of the Tora ment to forfill the "prophecy" of a "massiah." As for the Quran, that is (as far as i've heard) believed to be written by the followers of a man who believed he talked to an angel who was sent by God. Now these are simplified (especially about the Quran, for i hear that story goes much deeper).

Quote:
So, the problem fundamentally, relates not simply to translation, but rather to assignment of the significance of the various themes and parables within these "bibles".


Which relies in the translation as well. Emphasis can be changed by a mere rewording, and this is likely to be decided during the translation by the translator's personal opinion of what is emphasized and what is not.

Quote:
In the case of christianity, in particular, it is clear from historical data, that the "Bible" was created by Lord Constantine, who oversaw the selection process, including, and excluding various letters, epistles, and vignettes, as he saw fit. There is nothing supernatural about the process of assembling the "holy" text.


I hear this alot. one group says it's King James, Some say Constantine, and i hear alot more of names as well of people saying who chose what was in and what was to be excluded, and they often provide a large list of links to pseudo-scientific reports that confirm their belief. I would love for some one to prove that he did more toward and/or against christianity aside from messing up the dates of the birth and death of Jesus.

Quote:
As Christmas season is upon us, it is appropriate to recall HOW jesus of nazareth was assigned his birthdate. Lord Constantine assigned to the christian "divinity", (ostensible jewish "messiah",) a birth date corresponding to the the ancient, pagan, SECOND most important, secular holiday of the year: winter solstice.


I was just at choir practice at the church and we spoke of this. This was (i hate to actually admit this) actually to help people convert to christianity from the peagan holidays. People were used to celebrating holidays at this time, so they figured (and figured accuretly) that it would be easier for people to convert if they changed the days to fit that of the pagan holidays, since it wasn't much far from the dates they were already used to.

Quote:
Since Kohlrak is a biblical scholar, I leave it to him to explain WHY another person, not jesus, was assigned by Lord Constantine, the MOST important day of the calendar, as birth date.


I am not a biblical scholar. I never actually managed to get passed Genesis (thanks to the "degenerate Christian tome that masqurades as an electronic device". I have to quote that from now on. Laughing ) But, irregardlessly, i don't find Romans as the most approving of Christianity, and that could very well be the reason why.

Quote:
Point really, six days before Christmas, is this: no one knows when jesus of nazareth was born, or even if he was actually born in nazareth, or if he was semitic, and not african. We have no idea what he looked like, what he thought, or what he believed. All we have are Lord Constantine's approved anecdotes about him. Objectively, one ought to be praying to Lord Constantine. He is the editor of the "bible". Without his intervention, there would be no "bible". Can we imagine how apoplectic "Sir" or "Saint" Thomas More would have been upon learning of the existance of kohlrak's version of the bible? Even worse: kohlrak's notion of "Democratic ... 'mijority' [sic] ... reading", as though it were permissible to voice an opinion on the veracity of one translation or another??? Burn him alive at the stake, along with all the other heretics!


Mind you the democratic thing was a joke. It is the general process, but other things are to be taken in consideration before taking into mijority rule. And at this point, i think you need to take a chill pill.

Quote:
Israeli scientists put Bible on chip smaller than pinhead


Interesting, but they might be able to make it smaller if they actually stored the bible IN the chip instead of on it.
Post 20 Dec 2007, 01:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
I hear this alot. one group says it's King James, Some say Constantine, and i hear alot more of names as well of people saying who chose what was in and what was to be excluded, and they often provide a large list of links to pseudo-scientific reports that confirm their belief. I would love for some one to prove that he did more toward and/or against christianity aside from messing up the dates of the birth and death of Jesus.

King James? Please show me anyone who said King James was the one who selected which books will belong to bible. Haven't heard that yet.

As for evidence: In first 2-3 centuries CE, there were zounds of christian writings. Virtually every bishop re/wrote "his version" of gospels, and many stories about jesus, mary, judas, and other protagonists were invented. Later their followers collected bunch of such documents, and compiled their own editiongs from them, etc... (see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/). Note that majority of these documents didn't make it to present, but still lots survived.

There were many tries selecting only "real" documents from all that fakery. The collection that survived up to today was composed much late. According to catholic encyclopedia it was 16th century.
catholic encyclopedia wrote:
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.


See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Date_of_composition for general overview. But please be careful about "christian orthodoxy" stated on wikipedia, there is weak evidence for something like that until some 4th century.

And kohlrak, if you are true believer, you shouldn't request or study evidence to verify bible, or even consider what we write:
catholic encyclopedia wrote:
Since the Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration of these passages.

But personally i hope your intellectual honesty will prevail, and you will break this rule, and dare to challenge bible by studying evidence. If bible is truth, it should withstand any challenges anyway.
Post 20 Dec 2007, 01:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
tom wrote:
...this amusing query about a degenerate Christian tome masquerading as an electronic device ...
kohlrak wrote:
...that masqurades as an electronic device". I have to quote that from now on. ...
Oh, please don't quote me, without first consulting a dictionary, to check your misspelling with attribution to me....thanks.
kohlrak wrote:
...I hear this alot. ...
I recommend that you converse and listen less, but read more. Conversation is not wrong, but, first comes the data, then the conclusions about it. After you have data in hand, then you may indeed benefit from discussions with many different folks...
kohlrak wrote:
...so they figured (and figured accuretly) that it would be easier for people to convert if they changed the days to fit that of the pagan holidays, ....
Forgive my being so repetitive, but, how can you write: "and figured [accurately]"? What makes "their decision" (i.e. Constantine's decision) accurate? This is FASM forum, where data sheets are important. Instruction sets must be accurate. Op Codes must be uniform. However, in the case of religion, what sort of criterion does one apply to establish ACCURACY in calculating success or failure upon dictating an entirely fictional birthdate of a "messiah"? I believe that you are confused on this point. Perhaps even more importantly, I believe you err in understanding HOW Emperor Constantine created the Christian church, the bible, and many of the traditions which surround the practice of christianity today. What you seem not to understand, I am unsure why, is that Constantine was an absolute monarch. There was no appeal from his decision. Whatever he decided, that was IT. Period. End of story. You did not seem to understand my question about his choice of birth date assignment for jesus of nazareth. I asked you WHY Emperor Constantine assigned the SECOND most important pagan holiday as jesus' birthdate--i.e. WHY NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT pagan holiday? I hope you will think about that question, study it a bit, and report back to the forum with your answer, so that we may follow your progress....Hint: it has nothing to do with the marketing type of response you gave!!! We are not selling used cars here, kohlrak, and neither was Constantine.
kohlrak wrote:

it would be easier for people to convert if they changed the days to fit that of the pagan holidays,...
Are you feeling alright, kohlrak? Sure? I was quite certain that you had been febrile, when I read this response. "changed the days"???? What are you writing about??? Who changed which days?? Do you mean to imply that Emperor Constantine knew the actual birthdate of Jesus, but changed that authentic date in order to conform to pagan rituals, for expediency???? Of course not. Neither Constantine, nor anyone else had the slightest idea when or where Jesus was born. Constantine ruled the Roman empire THREE HUNDRED years after jesus' death. That's a very long time in an era without fax machines, dvd's, or printers. Who would be keeping track of the MANY kooks running around claiming to be the "messiah", during the intervening three hundred years? For me, the single most interesting part of the "dead sea scrolls" is not what is written, there, 35 years after the death of jesus, but rather, what is NOT recorded. Specifically, those eccentric jews living in isolation in the desert, make NO MENTION, in their sacred scrolls, of jesus of nazareth. Just 35 years after his death, jesus was utterly ignored by the jews themselves. Constantine resurrected the myth of his divinity, decreed jesus' birth date, which no one knew, and ordered that christianity become the official state religion.
vid wrote:
i hope your intellectual honesty will prevail, and you will break this rule, and dare to challenge bible by studying evidence. If bible is truth, it should withstand any challenges anyway.
Bravo, vid. Well written. Excellent assessment, in my opinion.
Post 20 Dec 2007, 03:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
King James? Please show me anyone who said King James was the one who selected which books will belong to bible. Haven't heard that yet.


I've heard it a bunch of times, just not here. My religious conversations aren't strictly here.

Quote:
As for evidence: In first 2-3 centuries CE, there were zounds of christian writings. Virtually every bishop re/wrote "his version" of gospels, and many stories about jesus, mary, judas, and other protagonists were invented. Later their followers collected bunch of such documents, and compiled their own editiongs from them, etc... (see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/). Note that majority of these documents didn't make it to present, but still lots survived.


I've not been convinced that any allogations(sp?) of any of that site is true. Their recommended books page talking about books with "Apocalypse" in the name and naming some other interesting titles that i've heard nothing good of aside from "interesting theory" dosn't exactly make this site seem overly reputable to me. And by the looks of things, it's a private website owned by 1 individual. A guy named Peter Kirby.

Quote:
There were many tries selecting only "real" documents from all that fakery. The collection that survived up to today was composed much late. According to catholic encyclopedia it was 16th century.


The catholics also said you can pay your way into heaven. Some catholics believe in praying through Mary instead of through Jesus. While i mean no offence to any present catholics, if any, i don't find catholics a very reputable source, especially for the notoriety of the church in the past. Also, the home page of that site has a link to a "scientific study of how to win rock paper scissors."

Quote:
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Date_of_composition for general overview. But please be careful about "christian orthodoxy" stated on wikipedia, there is weak evidence for something like that until some 4th century.


You should know by now that i won't accept wiki links for anything serious. I won't even waste my time and click on it.

Quote:
I recommend that you converse and listen less, but read more. Conversation is not wrong, but, first comes the data, then the conclusions about it. After you have data in hand, then you may indeed benefit from discussions with many different folks...


Data must first be evaluated before it is considered true.

[quote]And kohlrak, if you are true believer, you shouldn't request or study evidence to verify bible, or even consider what we write: /quote]

I'm not catholic, and i dis-agree strongly with the catholic church. They are the ones most famous for possible corruption of the bible. The catholic church came up with that, because they knew that if they didn't discourage critical thinking about christianity, many christians would come to their senses and do what eventually happened anyway. The protestent reformation.

Quote:
Forgive my being so repetitive, but, how can you write: "and figured [accurately]"? What makes "their decision" (i.e. Constantine's decision) accurate? This is FASM forum, where data sheets are important. Instructions sets must be accurate. Op Codes must be uniform. However, in the case of religion, what sort of criterion does one apply to establish ACCURACY in calculating success or failure upon dictating an entirely fictional birthdate of a "messiah"?


I'm saying that the changing was well thought and well executed. It worked.

Quote:
I believe that you are confused on this point. Perhaps even more importantly, I believe you err in understanding HOW Emperor Constantine created the Christian church, the bible, and many of the traditions which surround the practice of christianity today. What you seem not to understand, I am unsure why, is that Constantine was an absolute monarch. There was no appeal from his decision. Whatever he decided, that was IT. Period. End of story.


And how do we know that later what *MAY* have been omitted/added wasn't re-added/omitted later after his death? How do we know he even changed anything? I havn't been handed proof of this yet, or even a decent looking source with *EVIDENCE* of it.

Quote:
You did not seem to understand my question about his choice of birth date assignment for jesus of nazareth. I asked you WHY Emperor Constantine assigned the SECOND most important pagan holiday as jesus' birthdate--i.e. WHY NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT pagan holiday? I hope you will think about that question, study it a bit, and report back to the forum with your answer, so that we may follow your progress....Hint: it has nothing to do with the marketing type of response you gave!!! We are not selling used cars here, kohlrak, and neither was Constantine.


I gave you the answer. And yes, they're not selling cars. It's more serious than that, they're selling a belief and a way of life. If you don't give it at least some ease and/or appeal, you're not going to get anyone to follow it. It'd be like me saying that God came to me in a dream last night and told me that the world is going to end in 10 days unless we all jack off to our shoe laces. Who the hell would follow me? Now if i said that the world is going to end in 10 days if we don't give gifts to at least 1 person on christmas, then more people would follow, for it's very convieniant to do what you're doing anyway. As for why not the most important day, well perhaps it is due to the fact that a little push and pull must take effect, and changing the most important of days can certainly show an assertion of power or at least a change drastic enough to show constantine that he did have an effect on the people.

Quote:
Are you feeling alright, kohlrak? Sure? I was quite certain that you had been febrile, when I read this response. "changed the days"???? What are you writing about??? Who changed which days?? Do you mean to imply that Emperor Constantine knew the actual birthdate of Jesus, but changed that authentic date in order to conform to pagan rituals, for expediency???? Of course not.


We don't know whether he knew or not. He could very well have, and he may of not. Chances are, he had his own opinion of when it was anyway, and of all the days in a year, i don't expect him to just happen to have his idea of Jesus' birth on a pagan holiday of all things. He very well would have most likely believed that the lord would dishonor himself too much by doing that.

Quote:
Neither Constantine, nor anyone else had the slightest idea when or where Jesus was born. Constantine ruled the Roman empire THREE HUNDRED years after jesus' death. That's a very long time in an era without fax machines, dvd's, or printers. Who would be keeping track of the MANY kooks running around claiming to be the "messiah", during the intervening three hundred years?


Does that even matter? The actual date of his birth is as important as whether the power button of your computer screen is on the left, right, middle, bottom, or some other place.

Quote:
For me, the single most interesting part of the "dead sea scrolls" is not what is written, there, 35 years after the death of jesus, but rather, what is NOT recorded. Specifically, those eccentric jews living in isolation in the desert, make NO MENTION, in their sacred scrolls, of jesus of nazareth. Just 35 years after his death, jesus was ignored by the jews themselves.


The Jews notoriously forsake things. Surely the would have not believed he was really the massiah because he didn't free them from Roman control. They expected to be freed from roman control as they have many times before with others who had conqured them. Jesus' lack of doing this surely had them not believing, especially with all the things that Jesus supposedly said that they were doing wrong. Blasphemy didn't exactly go well with the jews or anyone else during that time period. It's hard to understand now days because we're not under slaves awaiting for some one to deliver us from a bunch of brutal soldiers.

Quote:
Constantine resurrected the myth of his divinity, decreed jesus' birth date, which no one knew, and ordered that christianity become the official state religion.


I find that hard to believe, with most of Rome being pagans. I could see this to try to make Rome have a single religion, but i really can't see this for an uknown reason. Rome hated Christianity. I see no motive. On the other hand, i can firmly believe that he had no choice with Christianity growing and growing like the black plague.

Quote:
Bravo, vid. Well written. Excellent assessment, in my opinion.


Here's another assessment for you, but i doubt you'll see it as excellent. While you question the bible, question your sources. Don't fall into the crowd that believes the divinci code and other completely random philosophies with little backing. So far, all i've seen is speculation.
Post 20 Dec 2007, 04:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Who would be keeping track of the MANY kooks running around claiming to be the "messiah", during the intervening three hundred years? For me, the single most interesting part of the "dead sea scrolls" is not what is written, there, 35 years after the death of jesus, but rather, what is NOT recorded.

funny thing is, there WERE writers who were writing about self-claimed messiahs about the time jesus lived. There is Philo, writing exactly about this kind of people like jesus is supposed to be, writing exactly in same time and area Jesus is supposed lived, but somehow he doesn't mention guy who supposedly made so many miracles and was "followed by multitudes". He didn't forget to write about people who were much less important. Hm?

And, there is Josephus, writing much later (90), who doesn't write about jesus anything. There are two alleged mentions, one obvious later christian forgery, and other can as well refer to any other annointed joshua (that's what "jesus christ" means), or can be partial forgery too.

Quote:
I've not been convinced that any allogations(sp?) of any of that site is true. Their recommended books page talking about books with "Apocalypse" in the name and naming some other interesting titles that i've heard nothing good of aside from "interesting theory" dosn't exactly make this site seem overly reputable to me. And by the looks of things, it's a private website owned by 1 individual. A guy named Peter Kirby.

That is site which *collects links and translations* of historical christian books. It is fine to challenge veracity of these books. Pick ANY of these books, and try to verify if it really comes from early christians. I assure you every one verifiably does. For most disputable books, site itself tells you where we know these texts from.

by the way: In case you don't know, "apocalypse" means "revelation", not "end of world".

Quote:
You should know by now that i won't accept wiki links for anything serious. I won't even waste my time and click on it.

okay, here you go. You won't have problems finding much more about "new testament canon history":
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html
http://www.ntcanon.org/
etc. etc. I could paste hundreds links, but i think it is enough to read few to get the idea.

you seem to approach all this "from wrong end", asking us for evidence.
- There were many christian documents, most of them forgeries. Some of them fortunately made it to our times. Today they are called "new testament apocrypha" by christians. We don't have any evidence that in their times, they were treated any differently from documents which are today in bible. We do have some contrary evidence - that they were treated same.
- We have evidence that various christians in early history (2nd, 3rd century) had access to only some of these documents. They differently choosed which ones are "true" and which aren't, several such lists made it to today.
- First list containing current collection of books ("bible") comes from 4th century. It is discutable how much this list influenced cannonization process, but it seems likely it was a strong influence.

Quote:
I find that hard to believe, with most of Rome being pagans. I could see this to try to make Rome have a single religion, but i really can't see this for an uknown reason. Rome hated Christianity. I see no motive. On the other hand, i can firmly believe that he had no choice with Christianity growing and growing like the black plague.

Why Rome hated christianity is question for longer talk. Basic reason was that Rome had many religions and was tolerable about all religions (including judaism). But it saw judaism (and thus christianity too) as simple superstition (read old testament to see why) which spreaded among uneducated low-class people. Christians were even called "atheists" by then. Then there was a Jewish revolt which caused hatred against jews, and very soon after that christianity emerged. Christians were completely untolerable against any other religion / idea, they often tried to fuck with religious events of other religions. Because of that they were cruely persecuted, always as single persons, not as entire religion, that happened only for short timespan much later. About time Constantine used christians to take over roman empire, we assume only about 5% of romans were christians.

I suggest you to read some firsthand criticism of christianity, from 2nd century "commoner" Celsus: http://members.aol.com/PS418/celsus.html
Many of these points are nonsense in current times, but many are still true, and it gives you insight into why people didn't like christianity.

Quote:
Here's another assessment for you, but i doubt you'll see it as excellent. While you question the bible, question your sources. Don't fall into the crowd that believes the divinci code and other completely random philosophies with little backing. So far, all i've seen is speculation.

Haha, don't worry, i can tell bullshit like daVinci code from historical sources. Believe me, i always verify what we know about any historical book, before reading it. Crap like "Holy blood and holy grail", or its today adaptation "Davinci code" makes more damage to real critics of christianity than to christians, because it gives christianity rare opportunity to demonstrate (some) their critics are wrong.

Problem is ALL we can do now is speculate. We don't really know how exactly bible emerged, but we can reconstruct it with high probability, if we study all contemporary historical sources.

What I say to you is accepted "speculation" (hypothesis) about how bible emerged. And I mean accepted even among christian scholars. It's just christian public that isn't informed about this, and is repeatedly given disputed version.

Evidence to all this cannot be given by one short "in your face" document or book. That is what DaVinci Code does. You need to study historical sources. Here is interesting article from believing biblical archaeologist, which demonstrates his views on development of certain documents which are now part of bible: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/best/bswbBestSubPage.asp?PubID=BSBKSJ&Volume=0&Issue=0&ArticleID=2
Post 20 Dec 2007, 09:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
funny thing is, there WERE writers who were writing about self-claimed messiahs about the time jesus lived. There is Philo, writing exactly about this kind of people like jesus is supposed to be, writing exactly in same time and area Jesus is supposed lived, but somehow he doesn't mention guy who supposedly made so many miracles and was "followed by multitudes". He didn't forget to write about people who were much less important. Hm?


His writing surely would have omitted or only included people he perceived was a fraud or the truth. If he mentioned not Jesus, he was probably unsure.

Quote:
And, there is Josephus, writing much later (90), who doesn't write about jesus anything. There are two alleged mentions, one obvious later christian forgery, and other can as well refer to any other annointed joshua (that's what "jesus christ" means), or can be partial forgery too.


Can be, might not be. And who cares if some random person writes about him or not? Surely with many following him as shown historically, i'm sure it would have been just as notable as if he really did commit those miracles. People have a habit of not writing about things they're unsure of.

Quote:
That is site which *collects links and translations* of historical christian books. It is fine to challenge veracity of these books. Pick ANY of these books, and try to verify if it really comes from early christians. I assure you every one verifiably does. For most disputable books, site itself tells you where we know these texts from.


Just because it says it can trace them doesn't mean it speaks the truth.

Quote:
by the way: In case you don't know, "apocalypse" means "revelation", not "end of world".


Revelation and Apocalypse are synonyms, and they both can mean "new idea" and "end of the world." Hence the "book of revelations" being about the end of the world.

Quote:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html


Richard Carrier... never heard of the guy. It's your source, so i burden you with showing me his reputability.

Quote:
http://www.ntcanon.org/


Run by 1 person, Glenn Davis. Humor me.

Quote:
you seem to approach all this "from wrong end", asking us for evidence.


It is you who make propositions, therefor it's your chore to prove them back them up, not mine.

Quote:
- There were many christian documents, most of them forgeries. Some of them fortunately made it to our times. Today they are called "new testament apocrypha" by christians. We don't have any evidence that in their times, they were treated any differently from documents which are today in bible. We do have some contrary evidence - that they were treated same.


Well, let's see it from a source that you can show is clearly reputable. I know i don't know any reputable sources, but that's why i'd like to see some evidence that what you tell me they say is honest and included no assumptions and that the person has no reason to pull stuff out of his ass. I doubt you'll be able to do that, but until you can do that, there's really no case. I know this, and that's why i won't bother trying to prove the bible as lagitimate. I just like shooting down all that which says it's not, so it at least has some equal footing in the eyes of others.

Quote:
We have evidence that various christians in early history (2nd, 3rd century) had access to only some of these documents. They differently choosed which ones are "true" and which aren't, several such lists made it to today.


Well with a guy hung on a cross and lots of followers, there is potential for falsification out there. It's a mear matter of finding out who really could have had contact with Jesus and/or his deciples and who hadn't. During the first few centuries, there would have still been fear in christians to the point they'd be too afraid to judge with anything other than that. It is well known and agreed that the books were written upon the testimony of the deciples, especially after their death. This was often done in their honor. Now taking it up to the 1500s is the part i don't feel is agreeable. Now, if the catholic church headed it, then i wouldn't be surprised, for they are/were/always will be known for corruption. "A true believer would never question" is actually a catholic idea used to prevent people from noticing the corruption.

Quote:
First list containing current collection of books ("bible") comes from 4th century. It is discutable how much this list influenced cannonization process, but it seems likely it was a strong influence.


If the list exists, who's to say that it wasn't modified later or even that it's authentic? People found Jesus' tomb so many times, but only one of them can be real, if any of them are. Who's to say these lists aren't fabrications of just that sort?

Quote:
Why Rome hated christianity is question for longer talk. Basic reason was that Rome had many religions and was tolerable about all religions (including judaism). But it saw judaism (and thus christianity too) as simple superstition (read old testament to see why) which spreaded among uneducated low-class people. Christians were even called "atheists" by then. Then there was a Jewish revolt which caused hatred against jews, and very soon after that christianity emerged. Christians were completely untolerable against any other religion / idea, they often tried to fuck with religious events of other religions. Because of that they were cruely persecuted, always as single persons, not as entire religion, that happened only for short timespan much later. About time Constantine used christians to take over roman empire, we assume only about 5% of romans were christians.


Jesus taught to have tolerance for the sinner, but not for the sin. Such revolts would likely have been by radicals equivalent to muslim terrorists today. Jesus' most obvious message was "love everyone." Everything he said was geared towards peace amoung people on earth. He even subliminally preached tolerance. Technically, according to him, i shouldn't even be arguing about this, but letting you all shoot off your mouth.

Quote:
I suggest you to read some firsthand criticism of christianity, from 2nd century "commoner" Celsus: http://members.aol.com/PS418/celsus.html
Many of these points are nonsense in current times, but many are still true, and it gives you insight into why people didn't like christianity.


He should take his own advice.

CELSUS wrote:
"One ought first to follow reason as a guide before accepting any belief, since anyone who believes without testing a doctrine is certain to be deceived" (54).


Though, i do find some of his comments interesting, but not really unarguable.

Quote:
Haha, don't worry, i can tell bullshit like daVinci code from historical sources. Believe me, i always verify what we know about any historical book, before reading it. Crap like "Holy blood and holy grail", or its today adaptation "Davinci code" makes more damage to real critics of christianity than to christians, because it gives christianity rare opportunity to demonstrate (some) their critics are wrong.


We christians often have the same problem with the arrival of false documents and unusual followers who wish to make up things of their own. I think both sides have a little give and take in this matter.

Quote:
Problem is ALL we can do now is speculate. We don't really know how exactly bible emerged, but we can reconstruct it with high probability, if we study all contemporary historical sources.


How can we be sure of probability by studying something years after it's culture has been lost. The culture of that time can never truely be understood without going back there. We like to think we understand the culture, but that's like all the anime freaks saying they understand japanese culture just because they watched alot of cartoons from there. All we have is psychologists, science, pseudo-science, and speculation to condemn it, and faith to believe it. Science really can't say much, for it only defines the psychology and maybe some artifacts, but since we really can't test anything we find science really dosn't help. Psychology is well known to be very un-reliable. Pseudo-science is really unreliable, and speculations really don't do any good. This is why i have to shoot down allegations of fowl play, because we can't really prove it and all we do is shoot off our mouth.

Quote:
What I say to you is accepted "speculation" (hypothesis) about how bible emerged. And I mean accepted even among christian scholars. It's just christian public that isn't informed about this, and is repeatedly given disputed version.


Scholars are indoctrinated more than the christian public. We are aware of such studies but we choose not to believe in them. You have seen above why i have not.

Quote:
Evidence to all this cannot be given by one short "in your face" document or book. That is what DaVinci Code does. You need to study historical sources. Here is interesting article from believing biblical archaeologist, which demonstrates his views on development of certain documents which are now part of bible: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/best/bswbBestSubPage.asp?PubID=BSBKSJ&Volume=0&Issue=0&ArticleID=2


He has some interesting theories, but i'm not ready to accept them yet. Actually, i have many of my own theories, but i know they could be used against christianity all together, so i keep my mouth shut on most of them until i can get some logic or even hard evidence for them. many of my beliefs would be considered heresy by today's standards.
Post 21 Dec 2007, 00:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
...and this is why one should generally not discuss religion (or politics) on public forums - so much useless text about nothing. I wonder why people choose to base their lives on lies, but hey - if you're too weak to stand up for yourself, go for it.
Post 21 Dec 2007, 00:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
His writing surely would have omitted or only included people he perceived was a fraud or the truth. If he mentioned not Jesus, he was probably unsure.

Your "surely" is not sure enough...

Quote:
And who cares if some random person writes about him or not?

Well, no one cares for single random person. But if there is NO person writing about him for so long, then it becomes pretty weird.

Quote:
Surely with many following him as shown historically

Only thing "shown historically" is that there were many people belonging to several cults of some "annointed joshua". No one was sure about anything, there were arguments if he already came, or if he just had to come, etc...

Quote:
Just because it says it can trace them doesn't mean it speaks the truth.

why don't you research yourself? For most books, there is good chance you will find list of it's manuscripts, who found them, where, under what circumstances, etc. With information like this, it is very unlikely to be fraud. Why do you disagree to even try to verify that these books are authentic? Afraid of outcome?

Quote:
Run by 1 person, Glenn Davis. Humor me.

Number of persons running website has nothing to do with truth of it's contents. But okay, give me example of reference to evidence you do accept.

Quote:
It is you who make propositions, therefor it's your chore to prove them back them up, not mine.

Not really. I make proposition that christianity was mess in the beginning, and I have to back it up, yes. That's why I gave you references to many old christian texts, so you can read about all various ideas circulating there. You say that there wasn't anything like many conflicting ideas, eg. you propose there was orthodoxy since beginning. So you have to back up your proposition just like i did. Give me some text from 2nd century saying about orthodoxy in 2nd century.

Quote:
If the list exists, who's to say that it wasn't modified later or even that it's authentic? People found Jesus' tomb so many times, but only one of them can be real, if any of them are. Who's to say these lists aren't fabrications of just that sort?

Most of times, there are ways to tell fraud from real evidence. It is not simple, and requires lot of study. Historical methods has advanced pretty good now. There are some pseudohistirians who want to make money/fame on shocking people with things like jesus tomb, but you will see majority of archeologists will immediately dispute it and write zounds articles explaining the fraud. But of course, this requires you to do some research yourself, at least look up those articles on web. No, you won't learn this from TV, and no wonder that you get impression that all historians are idiots like authors of these "documentaries".

Quote:
We christians often have the same problem with the arrival of false documents and unusual followers who wish to make up things of their own. I think both sides have a little give and take in this matter.

but you have problem with real recorded history too Smile Just for fun, try to find some non-christian evidence for existence of jesus, from before year 100 CE. Not mentioning Old testament deluge fantasies and escape from Egypt fantasies...

Quote:
How can we be sure of probability by studying something years after it's culture has been lost. The culture of that time can never truely be understood without going back there. We like to think we understand the culture, but that's like all the anime freaks saying they understand japanese culture just because they watched alot of cartoons from there. All we have is psychologists, science, pseudo-science, and speculation to condemn it, and faith to believe it. Science really can't say much, for it only defines the psychology and maybe some artifacts, but since we really can't test anything we find science really dosn't help. Psychology is well known to be very un-reliable. Pseudo-science is really unreliable, and speculations really don't do any good. This is why i have to shoot down allegations of fowl play, because we can't really prove it and all we do is shoot off our mouth.

You would be surprised how much we can tell about history with historical sciences. But you would have to study something about those sciences, instead of just commenting them. For example, take some time and read something about "textual criticism", one of many methods of better understanding history. We can't understand everything 100%, but we can understand pretty good, especially from time like first centuries CE, from which we have many contemporary documents describing current situation.

Quote:
Scholars are indoctrinated more than the christian public. We are aware of such studies but we choose not to believe in them. You have seen above why i have not.

You choose to disbelieve anything that doesn't fit to what you WANT to be truth. Unfortunatelly for you, what you want has nothing to do with reality. To believe means to consider something true without any evidence. But history is something where we usually have some evidence, so we aren't required to degrade into believing, we can verify instead.

Instead of "not believing" something, give it a try, and try to disprove it. You'll learn a lot doing this.

Quote:
He has some interesting theories, but i'm not ready to accept them yet. Actually, i have many of my own theories, but i know they could be used against christianity all together, so i keep my mouth shut on most of them until i can get some logic or even hard evidence for them. many of my beliefs would be considered heresy by today's standards.

Difference between yours and his theories is that he has good evidence for them. Keeping mouth shut as long as you don't have evidence is a good thing. But remember it is not enough to have some evidence, theory is valid only if it can explain ALL evidence available.
Post 21 Dec 2007, 00:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
Your "surely" is not sure enough...


I find that interesting.

Quote:
Well, no one cares for single random person. But if there is NO person writing about him for so long, then it becomes pretty weird.


Isn't it unfortunate how little literature remains from that time period?

Quote:
Only thing "shown historically" is that there were many people belonging to several cults of some "annointed joshua". No one was sure about anything, there were arguments if he already came, or if he just had to come, etc...


Et cetera? What else is there? As far as i'm told, the only arguments i know of back then was whether he will come or not and whether he already came or not. Enlighten me on what else there were arguments about.

Quote:
why don't you research yourself? For most books, there is good chance you will find list of it's manuscripts, who found them, where, under what circumstances, etc. With information like this, it is very unlikely to be fraud. Why do you disagree to even try to verify that these books are authentic? Afraid of outcome?


Supposedly the Bible was written by sinful, un-trustable men. Now you are saying the books of today are any more trustable? We know the people of today are often biased and can make mistakes, but as for the bible, we don't know if it was written by people with a motive or if it was written by people with truthful hearts. As for why i don't bother, it's because it's YOUR proposing argument. It's *YOUR* burden to convince me that your argument is even valid.

Quote:
Number of persons running website has nothing to do with truth of it's contents. But okay, give me example of reference to evidence you do accept.


I'm not going to go out and look for evidence against the bible more than i would go out and look for evidence that there's cocain in McDonald's Sandwiches. If the bible was tampered with, it's very important. If there's cocain in McDonald's Sandwiches, it's very important, but it dosn't mean i'm going to sit here and waste my time looking for either.

Quote:
Not really. I make proposition that christianity was mess in the beginning, and I have to back it up, yes. That's why I gave you references to many old christian texts, so you can read about all various ideas circulating there. You say that there wasn't anything like many conflicting ideas, eg. you propose there was orthodoxy since beginning. So you have to back up your proposition just like i did. Give me some text from 2nd century saying about orthodoxy in 2nd century.


No, i'm just saying that i don't believe your referances and i don't find them reputable. You can believe whatever you want, but if you're going to make proposals, back them up. You gave me sites, now back them up, because i'm not convinced of their validity. You're telling me to trust these people more than people who died over 1000 years ago. Mind you people back then were likely to be more afraid to lie then than they are now. They did fear a God, now people don't. That fear of God is like having a cop on the same street as you. If you notice and fear the cop, you'll not break the law. If you don't notice and/or don't fear the cop, you won't care if you break the law or not, and probably break it. Therefore, my reasoning leads me to believe that these "story tellers" of long ago would be more reputable (while whether or not they're more truthful i let thee to decide for thyself) than people of today.

Quote:
Most of times, there are ways to tell fraud from real evidence. It is not simple, and requires lot of study. Historical methods has advanced pretty good now.


As you said "surely" isn't good enough, i say that "good" isn't good enough.

Quote:
There are some pseudohistirians who want to make money/fame on shocking people with things like jesus tomb, but you will see majority of archeologists will immediately dispute it and write zounds articles explaining the fraud.


Assuming they even care.

Quote:
But of course, this requires you to do some research yourself, at least look up those articles on web. No, you won't learn this from TV, and no wonder that you get impression that all historians are idiots like authors of these "documentaries".


I don't feel all historians are, just some. I do know one thing though, something i've been taught many, many times before. If you look for something hard enough, you shall find it, even if it's not there. Therefor, if I am to search my rear-end off to find a source that says Jesus was a girl, i'm sure i'd find some wacko who says that. Just because you find a guy's name on something doesn't mean it's true. It just means that he's willing to stake his name that people will believe it.

Quote:
but you have problem with real recorded history too Just for fun, try to find some non-christian evidence for existence of jesus, from before year 100 CE. Not mentioning Old testament deluge fantasies and escape from Egypt fantasies...


"escape from egypt fantasies." I remember hearing alot of anti-exodus stories. They go up there with the stories of Jesus marrying a prostitute. If that had happened, no one would have followed Jesus nor would would anyone have dared to make a religion out of him. Both come up with the idea of "this could of been a mispelling" or "this could have had a double meaning."

Quote:
You would be surprised how much we can tell about history with historical sciences. But you would have to study something about those sciences, instead of just commenting them. For example, take some time and read something about "textual criticism", one of many methods of better understanding history. We can't understand everything 100%, but we can understand pretty good, especially from time like first centuries CE, from which we have many contemporary documents describing current situation.


How do you know it's "good?" How do you know how good something is unless you have something else to compare it to? You can't tell how close you are until you have something that is 100% accuret. I don't share the same optimism that you do about today's "advancements in technology." I like computers, computers are clever, i know we have more gadgets like computers and light bulbs, but that really dosn't say that our culture itself is more advance, just that we have more advanced technology. I'm old school, i'll admit it. I'm not about to trust some random logic just because everyone thinks it's "pretty good." i still am not convinced that it's "pretty good."

Quote:
You choose to disbelieve anything that doesn't fit to what you WANT to be truth. Unfortunatelly for you, what you want has nothing to do with reality. To believe means to consider something true without any evidence. But history is something where we usually have some evidence, so we aren't required to degrade into believing, we can verify instead.


No, a belief is something you have if you don't have absolute proof. Having only evidence to support your idea constitutes belief.

Quote:
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.


Deffinition 1 from dictionary.com.

Quote:
Instead of "not believing" something, give it a try, and try to disprove it. You'll learn a lot doing this.


Instead of believing something, give it a try, and try to not disprove it. You'll learn a lot doing this.

Mockery aside, i think it's fair to point out that initial stance makes a big difference in the outcome of an argument. In my mockery, i intend to point out that just as untrusting i am of today's people, you are equally untrusting of the people of years ago. Just as i am despirately faithful to the words of long ago, you are faithful to the words of now. Because people live in the world of now, and not the world of long ago, most will agree with you, vid. But, i don't. People say that we made Gods to take the place of what we didn't understand long ago. I say that we have made sciences to take the place of what we can't understand right now. Today, we depend too much on the honesty and good will of people today, when all i have seen is corruption. I've seen that there was corruption in that time as well, so it's a meer matter of either flipping a coin or rational thinking of which to trust more. I trust the people of long ago more than i trust people of today.

Quote:
Difference between yours and his theories is that he has good evidence for them. Keeping mouth shut as long as you don't have evidence is a good thing. But remember it is not enough to have some evidence, theory is valid only if it can explain ALL evidence available.


We can sit and speculate many, many things that can be the truth of the matter and find ways that explain all the evidence. The difference is one theory dominates all the others. I find this to be a lack of creativity, because once it's out there, instead of comming up with an idea of your own, you just accept what another has proposed to you. It's sad how there are many isms, yet this "advanced" and "tolerant" culture that we have today, picks it's favorite "isms" and condemns anyone who dosn't follow their list of "isms." For instance, Optimism is something often supported. We are indoctrinated that optimism is a good thing, but is it really a good thing? Who's to say that pessimism isn't better? I'm not the optimist, i'm not the pessimist, i'm the engineeer[see below]. Of the 3, Vid, you are clearly an optimist. You go with the flow way too much. The optimist is easy to take advantage of, and gets screwed over. You don't agree with conventional christianity, so when you look at something that condemns it and doesn't have anything that sticks out as fallacy, it's (seemingly) instantly reputable and no one may logically argue against it or even question it's reputability. Anything else and you'll test it to death to find every little error in it. I'm the same way. We all are. This is the problem with debating here. We have no originality. We just point people to everyone else's theories whether we've actually tested them or not. It can really hurt our reputability. We all need to change in this respect. Who's to say my theories have not good evidence. You havn't even really heard mine yet, though mine typically don't involve the same things. Mine are more about things like "what's a sin and what isn't," "What's an easy way to identify a sin," "resurection," et cetera. Some (Christians and non-Christians alike) might find my resurection theory a little interesting. Both would probably find me as some sort of a nut.

Engineer referance:

There are a class of jokes called Engineer jokes. They're like "blond jokes" in a sence. The one referanced here is shown in the following quote.

Quote:
An optimist is a person who sees the glass half full. The pessimist sees the glass half empty. The engineer sees the glass twice as big as it needs to be.
Post 21 Dec 2007, 04:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
kohlrak wrote:
vid wrote:

Well, no one cares for single random person. But if there is NO person writing about him for so long, then it becomes pretty weird.

Isn't it unfortunate how little literature remains from that time period?

Problem is, there is A LOT of literature from that period, and it is one of best documented period of antiquity. Yet, somehow, no Jesuses... ?

Quote:
Et cetera? What else is there? As far as i'm told, the only arguments i know of back then was whether he will come or not and whether he already came or not. Enlighten me on what else there were arguments about.

Whether he was born as normal man and chosen by god later (Mark) or if he was born messiah (other gospels). Whether he was god, or just chosen by god. Whether he was some kind of lesser god, or equal to YHWH (or equal to "holy spirit" too, eg. trinity). Whether he was born from virgin. Whether he was real physical man, or just spirit that was here. Whether he could really suffer during crucifixion (omnipotent god being tortured is pretty weird idea for many).

For some list of ideas, read documents written by early christians. I already gave you link. If you dont trust that site, just learn names there, and look for their texts anywhere.

Quote:
As for why i don't bother, it's because it's YOUR proposing argument. It's *YOUR* burden to convince me that your argument is even valid.

How should I convice you, if you don't want to learn any facts? Ignorance is worst you can do. As a devout christian, go on, and study historic christian documents (which i gave you links to). As I said, if what you believe is truth, it will easily withstand any historical evidence. My convicing is all based on fact, which you refuse to learn. There is no way to convice you, if you don't want to learn any new facts.

Quote:
I'm not going to go out and look for evidence against the bible more than i would go out and look for evidence that there's cocain in McDonald's Sandwiches. If the bible was tampered with, it's very important. If there's cocain in McDonald's Sandwiches, it's very important, but it dosn't mean i'm going to sit here and waste my time looking for either.

This is true. That's why you got to learn to pick which "one man" to trust, and which not. Very good way is to see if someone gives references to his sources. If one doesn't, there is no way to verify his claims. If he does, you can follow sources, and challenge and verify anything you doubt. That list of early christian writing is VERY verifiable.

Quote:
As you said "surely" isn't good enough, i say that "good" isn't good enough.

your surely wasn't good enough, because it was demonstratably wrong. AFAIK Philo did write about both types of people, you said he didn't. Yes, historical methods can be wrong too, but they correct themselves over time, and 99% times are consistent with all evidence, unlike your "surely" which immediately wasn't.

Quote:
vid wrote:
but you will see majority of archeologists will immediately dispute it and write zounds articles explaining the fraud.

Assuming they even care.

oh, they do care. But you must care too, and at least TRY to find those articles, before claiming they don't exist.

Quote:
I don't feel all historians are, just some. I do know one thing though, something i've been taught many, many times before. If you look for something hard enough, you shall find it, even if it's not there. Therefor, if I am to search my rear-end off to find a source that says Jesus was a girl, i'm sure i'd find some wacko who says that. Just because you find a guy's name on something doesn't mean it's true. It just means that he's willing to stake his name that people will believe it.

Yes. and that's why he should give references to his evidence, and if you doubt him, you should follow references and check all evidence. If he doesn't have evidence, you will find out, and know to ignore this guy.

Quote:
No, a belief is something you have if you don't have absolute proof. Having only evidence to support your idea constitutes belief.

Well, if you have at least some evidence, it is accepting the more probable explaination. It is still a belief if you say "this is 100% right" even though evidence is not 100%. But if you just stick to more probable explaination, and keep mind open, that is not belief.

Quote:
"escape from egypt fantasies." I remember hearing alot of anti-exodus stories. They go up there with the stories of Jesus marrying a prostitute. If that had happened, no one would have followed Jesus nor would would anyone have dared to make a religion out of him. Both come up with the idea of "this could of been a mispelling" or "this could have had a double meaning."

Again, you make some logical error. Because someone who said A also said B, and was wrong about B, it doesn't mean A is not truth. Example: Many "jesus tomb" people also say jesus really lived. Jesus tomb is bullshit. Does it mean Jesus didn't live?

Instead, go on, and try to find some historical evidence of exodus. And post it back here please (preferably new thread). Regarding exodus, you are one making claim anything like that ever happened, so follow your own (correct) rules, and search for evidence.

Quote:
Instead of believing something, give it a try, and try to not disprove it. You'll learn a lot doing this.

So i will not believe it, and not disprove it. What will I learn by that?

Quote:
i intend to point out that just as untrusting i am of today's people, you are equally untrusting of the people of years ago. Just as i am despirately faithful to the words of long ago, you are faithful to the words of now. Because people live in the world of now, and not the world of long ago, most will agree with you, vid. But, i don't. People say that we made Gods to take the place of what we didn't understand long ago.

I don'believe today's people and don't believe people from long ago. I don't "believe" people at all. I accept evidence from people, and form my conclusions based on evidence. Evidence presented by some guy 2000 years ago is just as good for me, as evidence presented by you. Believing doesn't get you any closer to real truth (look at all things that people believed). Evidence gets you closer to truth.

However, if you insist on believing people from antiquity, go on, and read those books from christians of 2nd century. You may be surprised by thing they did believe.

Quote:
I say that we have made sciences to take the place of what we can't understand right now.

Terribly wrong, science is about what we CAN understand. Open your dictionary again, and look up science. Or, ideally, learn how science works (data, hypothesis, testing, theory, ...)

Quote:
Of the 3, Vid, you are clearly an optimist. You go with the flow way too much. The optimist is easy to take advantage of, and gets screwed over. You don't agree with conventional christianity, so when you look at something that condemns it and doesn't have anything that sticks out as fallacy, it's (seemingly) instantly reputable and no one may logically argue against it or even question it's reputability. Anything else and you'll test it to death to find every little error in it.

No, this is how you may percieve me, but I put to test even things I like. Some ideas that i liked already failed testing, and I did change my opinon, even though I didn't like it. This is the hardest part of "seeking truth", it is that "intellectual honesty" I was talking about. You must put everything to test, even things you like. And you must accept result of evidence, even if you don't like it. What you like (eg. emotions) doesn't have anything to do with truth.

I admit falling to some false idea in past, but fortunately i studied evidence and came out of many. Can you say that too? Did you practice intellectual honesty, seek evidence, and change your opinion after evidence overwhelmed your opinion?

Nice joke btw, i only knew first 2/3 of it.
Post 21 Dec 2007, 12:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
Problem is, there is A LOT of literature from that period, and it is one of best documented period of antiquity. Yet, somehow, no Jesuses... ?


Well, if there is, then the Bible was the only thing that interested the masses of today. I don't recall hearing of anything special from that time period aside from the bible.

Quote:
Whether he was born as normal man and chosen by god later (Mark) or if he was born messiah (other gospels). Whether he was god, or just chosen by god. Whether he was some kind of lesser god, or equal to YHWH (or equal to "holy spirit" too, eg. trinity). Whether he was born from virgin. Whether he was real physical man, or just spirit that was here. Whether he could really suffer during crucifixion (omnipotent god being tortured is pretty weird idea for many).


I'm not even sure if that last one could be conceived, but that's un-important.

Quote:
For some list of ideas, read documents written by early christians. I already gave you link. If you dont trust that site, just learn names there, and look for their texts anywhere.


I'll put it on my to do list.

Quote:
How should I convice you, if you don't want to learn any facts? Ignorance is worst you can do. As a devout christian, go on, and study historic christian documents (which i gave you links to). As I said, if what you believe is truth, it will easily withstand any historical evidence. My convicing is all based on fact, which you refuse to learn. There is no way to convice you, if you don't want to learn any new facts.


My desire to learn facts has nothing to do with this, considering a fact is defined as a truth... How can something be considered a truth if it can't even be proven? All you can do is give me evidence, and i go around looking at it's reputability. That is, unless you have a time machine.

Quote:
This is true. That's why you got to learn to pick which "one man" to trust, and which not. Very good way is to see if someone gives references to his sources. If one doesn't, there is no way to verify his claims. If he does, you can follow sources, and challenge and verify anything you doubt. That list of early christian writing is VERY verifiable.


But it's not my propositional and not my duty to verify it. You're not going to convince me by throwing links at me and telling me to research them all until i find what you want me to find. I don't have the time for that. It's your case, you support it all the way.

Quote:
your surely wasn't good enough, because it was demonstratably wrong. AFAIK Philo did write about both types of people, you said he didn't. Yes, historical methods can be wrong too, but they correct themselves over time, and 99% times are consistent with all evidence, unlike your "surely" which immediately wasn't.


Are you telling me that you check each method with what you tested it with? The only real way to judge how good something like that is is to have some one from that era tell you. Now, if they can't even be 100% consitent with the evidence with which they based it, how can it possibly work? Ok, let's just tweak this here, and that there. Hell, why don't we just tweak everything so it fits 100%. Why not just make 3 and 5 also equal 2+2 so that the whole world is 100% right all the time when they add the numbers together, rather than idiots getting the wrong answer?

Quote:
So i will not believe it, and not disprove it. What will I learn by that?


Your opponents REAL point of view for starters.

Quote:
I don'believe today's people and don't believe people from long ago. I don't "believe" people at all. I accept evidence from people, and form my conclusions based on evidence. Evidence presented by some guy 2000 years ago is just as good for me, as evidence presented by you. Believing doesn't get you any closer to real truth (look at all things that people believed). Evidence gets you closer to truth.


You believe them when they say they have evidence, and that that evidence wasn't tampered with. I've never been able to have the same faith in people that you seem to have.

Quote:
However, if you insist on believing people from antiquity, go on, and read those books from christians of 2nd century. You may be surprised by thing they did believe.


I'm very surprised by the things that people today believe.

Quote:
Terribly wrong, science is about what we CAN understand. Open your dictionary again, and look up science. Or, ideally, learn how science works (data, hypothesis, testing, theory, ...)


Doesn't mean that's not what the purpose is. What we can understand and what we can't understand is still uknown to us because we don't understand. People thousands of years ago couldn't understand the concept of electronic calculators, but today we have them. What will we have later? Never know, in 2000 years, maybe they'll say "those primitive people, basing everything they believe soley on their eyes and other senses."

Quote:
No, this is how you may percieve me, but I put to test even things I like. Some ideas that i liked already failed testing, and I did change my opinon, even though I didn't like it. This is the hardest part of "seeking truth", it is that "intellectual honesty" I was talking about. You must put everything to test, even things you like. And you must accept result of evidence, even if you don't like it. What you like (eg. emotions) doesn't have anything to do with truth.


I could give you evidence that leather comes from chickens by dropping a piece of gum onto carpet. Doesn't mean it's good evidence, and I hope you wouldn't say i "must acccept" that evidence.

Quote:
I admit falling to some false idea in past, but fortunately i studied evidence and came out of many. Can you say that too? Did you practice intellectual honesty, seek evidence, and change your opinion after evidence overwhelmed your opinion?


Yes, in the past actually. Spent alot of time looking for the proof for my opposer's argument, though. I learned my lesson for that one time, for i spent too much time and little debate got done, because i had to go before i could even finish reading the evidence that i found. I believe that if some one can argue for something, they should have better understanding of that evidence, therefor can more quickly provide that evidence. Is that not logical?

Quote:
Nice joke btw, i only knew first 2/3 of it.


Well that's the joke. They took an existing saying and added to it (i was trying to make a point by referancing a joke that added to an old saying). I've heard some other clever ones as well. Most that i've seen deal with making decisions soley about how something fits.
Post 22 Dec 2007, 10:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Well, if there is, then the Bible was the only thing that interested the masses of today. I don't recall hearing of anything special from that time period aside from the bible.

You are getting out of topic: regardless of what are masses interested in, no nonchristian writer in first century mentioned jesus. That is problem for christians whether masses are interested in 1st century literature or not. All you explained by this is why YOU errorously thought we have very few documents from 1st century.

Quote:
I'll put it on my to do list.

I'm really glad to hear that. That's the whole point of this debating, to encourage you and others to study all evidence (not just one side), and make your own conclusions.

Quote:
All you can do is give me evidence, and i go around looking at it's reputability. That is, unless you have a time machine.

by "fact" i meant "evidence". Yes, that is exactly what i wanted to do - to give you evidence, early christian literature in this case.

kohlrak wrote:
vid wrote:
I don'believe today's people and don't believe people from long ago. I don't "believe" people at all. I accept evidence from people, and form my conclusions based on evidence. Evidence presented by some guy 2000 years ago is just as good for me, as evidence presented by you. Believing doesn't get you any closer to real truth (look at all things that people believed). Evidence gets you closer to truth.

You believe them when they say they have evidence, and that that evidence wasn't tampered with. I've never been able to have the same faith in people that you seem to have.

wrong. I don't "believe them when they say they have the evidence". I ask them to present their evidence. Check topic about apostles, someone said "we have evidence they exist", so I asked him to present that evidence.

About tampering with evidence: Yes, it really happens sometimes, but usually this tampering is discovered and reported by someone else. That's why you got to always look for "response from other side", and read it too.

Quote:
Doesn't mean that's not what the purpose is. What we can understand and what we can't understand is still uknown to us because we don't understand. People thousands of years ago couldn't understand the concept of electronic calculators, but today we have them. What will we have later? Never know, in 2000 years, maybe they'll say "those primitive people, basing everything they believe soley on their eyes and other senses."

- Science bases everything on observable testable things, not just on senses. Yes, every result is transformed to something percieveable by human, but saying that we limit science to our senses is very misleading. What's the last time you saw/heard/touched/tasted quantum entanglement?
- this is not BELIEVING, this is accepting evidence

So, your sentence should look like more like this:
"Those primitive people, basing their opinions soley on testable observations."

Quote:
I could give you evidence that leather comes from chickens by dropping a piece of gum onto carpet. Doesn't mean it's good evidence, and I hope you wouldn't say i "must acccept" that evidence.

If you can give me evidence for that, and I can't refute it, then I must accept it, yes.

Basically, you are saying we can't really know history, we can't know this world, we have to believe anyway, etc. You are proposing staying in darkness, instead of developing and practicing methods to explore this world. I think science already demonstrated it's potential, and in short time made live of mankind much better, than those ideas about "staying in darkness" ever did in millenias.
Post 22 Dec 2007, 11:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
You are getting out of topic: regardless of what are masses interested in, no nonchristian writer in first century mentioned jesus. That is problem for christians whether masses are interested in 1st century literature or not. All you explained by this is why YOU errorously thought we have very few documents from 1st century.


Well, any non-christians wouldn't care much about one fraud over the other. And all would be frauds to them, leaving no room for non-frauds to stick out and be written about. I assume, and i'm guessing that you do as well, that there were many false profits during that time. We have them in today's world all the time, poor people wanting to be important. Jesus just may not have been chosen out of the many false profits. The likelyhood (t/f) that he'd be chosen would be the number of talked about profits (t) over the number of false profits (f). Not to mention, many authors could have followed up on other authors, producing similar if not equal lists of examples of false profits. (For example figures) If a man wrote only covered 10 profits, and there were 99 false profits and 1 Jesus (false or true irregardless of), there would only be a 10% chance that Jesus would be mentioned. Now personally, i don't know how many false profits there were back then, but likely to be more than today, because religion was a bit bigger back then than it is now, and many false profits honestly think they're profits. Now, if you add the concept that other authors may follow up on each other, then that the probability that he'd be put in any of the literature drops even further. It falls still more as the concept of loosing literature falls into place. Then it falls further when we assume that the author didn't rename jesus and/or reported inaccuretly about him. That's alot of division, if you ask me.

Quote:
by "fact" i meant "evidence". Yes, that is exactly what i wanted to do - to give you evidence, early christian literature in this case.


Then let's requote you putting the right words in the right place, and try again. Changed words are bolded below.

Quote:
How should I convice you, if you don't want to learn any evidence? Ignorance is worst you can do. As a devout christian, go on, and study historic christian documents (which i gave you links to). As I said, if what you believe is truth, it will easily withstand any historical evidence. My convicing is all based on evidence, which you refuse to learn. There is no way to convice you, if you don't want to learn any new evidence.


I want to first be shown that the evidence is indeed valid evidence, before i bother learning about it. That literature is only to be considered valid if proven beyond doubt that it is indeed Christian and written by the people whom it's said to be written, and if the authors of those ancient Christian literature could even give valid points to begin with. A long enduring task which is on my to do list, which means i won't get to it for a while.

Quote:
wrong. I don't "believe them when they say they have the evidence". I ask them to present their evidence. Check topic about apostles, someone said "we have evidence they exist", so I asked him to present that evidence.


So when do you start believing that evidence?

Quote:
About tampering with evidence: Yes, it really happens sometimes, but usually this tampering is discovered and reported by someone else. That's why you got to always look for "response from other side", and read it too.


The probability of realising tampering depends on whether or not one finds the report of tampering. The probability of finding the report depends on alot of factors, including how many times it was reported and the importance of the reporter. For example, if i find something wrong with some evidence and post it here on the boards, what is the likely hood that anyone will find my pointing out of the fraud? Futhermore, the chance of someone reporting the fraud depends on the desire to point out the fraud. That desire is dependent on the stance of that person on the issue and their honesty. Their honesty and stance depend on a larger list of division. The division for the probability of this also relies on alot of division. Though i did miss one... The importance of the person... That depends on alot of division as well, and sticking up for christianity in the year 2000 and up isn't exactly going to make you very popular.

Quote:
Science bases everything on observable testable things, not just on senses. Yes, every result is transformed to something percieveable by human, but saying that we limit science to our senses is very misleading. What's the last time you saw/heard/touched/tasted quantum entanglement?


And everything that transforms it was invented based only on senses. In the end, it all comes back down to senses being the origin.

Quote:
this is not BELIEVING, this is accepting evidence


Believing is accepting evidence.

Quote:
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.


Quote:
So, your sentence should look like more like this:
"Those primitive people, basing their opinions soley on testable observations."


Chances are, the future opinion won't be as descriptive. And if it were, it would be, "Those primitive people, basing their opinions soley on observations resulting from tests." "Testable observations" is mis-leading, for to them, testability maybe extended further than just observations.

Quote:
If you can give me evidence for that, and I can't refute it, then I must accept it, yes.


Aye, but everything presented to me so far i have found refutable.

Quote:
Basically, you are saying we can't really know history, we can't know this world, we have to believe anyway, etc.


Pretty much. The world is more complex than our brains, so how can we expect to truely understand it when the level of complexity is higher than that with which we choose to understand the complexity?

Quote:
You are proposing staying in darkness, instead of developing and practicing methods to explore this world.


No, i'm just saying that one should always keep at least a minor doubt in their head than perceive absolutely true what they think they understand.

Quote:
I think science already demonstrated it's potential, and in short time made live of mankind much better, than those ideas about "staying in darkness" ever did in millenias.


It has shown it's potential, and that potential shows that it does have limits. Limits are a problem. Limits are where the doubt comes in. Limits are where the errors come in.
Post 22 Dec 2007, 12:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Well, any non-christians wouldn't care much about one fraud over the other. And all would be frauds to them, leaving no room for non-frauds to stick out and be written about. I assume, and i'm guessing that you do as well, that there were many false profits during that time. We have them in today's world all the time, poor people wanting to be important. Jesus just may not have been chosen out of the many false profits. The likelyhood (t/f) that he'd be chosen would be the number of talked about profits (t) over the number of false profits (f). Not to mention, many authors could have followed up on other authors, producing similar if not equal lists of examples of false profits. (For example figures) If a man wrote only covered 10 profits, and there were 99 false profits and 1 Jesus (false or true irregardless of), there would only be a 10% chance that Jesus would be mentioned. Now personally, i don't know how many false profits there were back then, but likely to be more than today, because religion was a bit bigger back then than it is now, and many false profits honestly think they're profits. Now, if you add the concept that other authors may follow up on each other, then that the probability that he'd be put in any of the literature drops even further. It falls still more as the concept of loosing literature falls into place. Then it falls further when we assume that the author didn't rename jesus and/or reported inaccuretly about him. That's alot of division, if you ask me.

O agree, but remember our sole source on jesus is bible. If we are to trust that source, jesus "was followed by multitudes", and that vastly increases chance that someone would pick him out of 99 other prophets not followed by multitudes. So, if Jesus was real, then we have to rely on improbable claim that no one wrote about him. This is one of many improbabilities you have to rely on, to have jesus as historical figure.

Quote:
I want to first be shown that the evidence is indeed valid evidence, before i bother learning about it. That literature is only to be considered valid if proven beyond doubt that it is indeed Christian and written by the people whom it's said to be written, and if the authors of those ancient Christian literature could even give valid points to begin with. A long enduring task which is on my to do list, which means i won't get to it for a while.

"showing that evidence is valid" is part of "learning about evidence". It will never be beyond doubt, but it can be 99.9% probable that it is valid. Your approach is fine: before reading book, look for historians commenting it's authenticity, putting evidence that book is valid, etc. If evidence suggests book is not valid, don't read it (yet, it could still be very interesting, as forgery).

Quote:
vid wrote:

wrong. I don't "believe them when they say they have the evidence". I ask them to present their evidence. Check topic about apostles, someone said "we have evidence they exist", so I asked him to present that evidence.

So when do you start believing that evidence?

You changed topic from me "believing someone who says he has evidence". Shall I take it so that you withdraw your claim that I believe people who just say they have evidence and not present it? Because I don't want people to think that about me,

I don't accept that evidence. None of those things listed were evidence for 12 apostles, they weren't even mentioned. Only two of them were supposed evidence for Jesus.

But there are still explainations of that evidence even for case Jesus didn't exist. These explainations seem much more probable to me, than explainations in which jesus existed. So I stick to more probable explainations. We can discuss these probabilities specifically in that other thread.

Quote:
The probability of realising tampering depends on whether or not one finds the report of tampering. The probability of finding the report depends on alot of factors, including how many times it was reported and the importance of the reporter.

Yes. So should we stop learning evidence at all, and live in intellectual darknes, because it can in some rare cases be forged? No, we should instead repeatedly challenge and verify every piece of evidence. Of course no one can do it all himself. Science works on p2p basis, and everyone adds his little bit.

Quote:
And everything that transforms it was invented based only on senses. In the end, it all comes back down to senses being the origin.

Idea is, that everything that can affect as can also be at the end observed by senses. Things that can't be observed don't affect us, and so there is no reason for us

If you disagree with this, give me some example of something that affects us, yet can't be observed.

Quote:
Believing is accepting evidence.

Believing is for sure not same as accepting evidence. Many people say "I don't have evidence for it, but i believe it". You can include accepting evidence too into term "beliving", but you can't say that believing is same as accepting evidence.

Quote:
Aye, but everything presented to me so far i have found refutable.

You didn't refute anything. All you said was "i think that it maybe can refuted". Just thinking that something can be refuted isn't enough. Evidence remains valid until it refuted. Go on, and refute anything of those things presented to you.

Quote:
Pretty much. The world is more complex than our brains, so how can we expect to truely understand it when the level of complexity is higher than that with which we choose to understand the complexity?

And yet, we have understood sooo much of it, and we are still learning new things. If all people in past were thinking same like you, we would still be hunting animals naked in forest. Ability and desire to learn and understand is the thing that made mankind what it is now.

Quote:
No, i'm just saying that one should always keep at least a minor doubt in their head than perceive absolutely true what they think they understand.

Yes, i agree. Nothing can be absolutely proven. But "keeping at least minor doubt" shouldn't mean to refuse to learn evidence, "because it is not 100% sure to be truth".

Quote:
It has shown it's potential, and that potential shows that it does have limits. Limits are a problem. Limits are where the doubt comes in. Limits are where the errors come in.

No, limits doesn't produce error. Science doesn't comment things outside it's limit. If science is wrong within it's limits, it eventually corrects itself.

BTW: it is spelled "prophet", not "profit"
Post 22 Dec 2007, 13:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
O agree, but remember our sole source on jesus is bible. If we are to trust that source, jesus "was followed by multitudes", and that vastly increases chance that someone would pick him out of 99 other prophets not followed by multitudes.


Something could make the others stick out, and some may be afraid to touch the topic due to the multitudes. Some may have been after money, and picking on something supported by someone you know or that your audience may know may not be the best for sales. Also, there may be a form of dis-respect in not writing about Jesus. This could be done to spite the followers of Christ, by saying that Christianity is less important/probable/interesting/etc than other prophets. That would be a cultural influence that we can't be sure existed or not during the culture of then. By not respecting the religion enough to spend time in cutting it down (saying that it's too trivial and/or not worth the time), it's even more of an insult than cutting it down.

Quote:
This is one of many improbabilities you have to rely on, to have jesus as historical figure.


The others?

Quote:
"showing that evidence is valid" is part of "learning about evidence". It will never be beyond doubt, but it can be 99.9% probable that it is valid.


Can be, but it doesn't mean it is.

Quote:
Your approach is fine: before reading book, look for historians commenting it's authenticity, putting evidence that book is valid, etc.


You also have to take into consideration the historian's knowledge, opinion, trustability, etc. It's an ongoing recursive routine for validating evidence... I'll be honest, it takes a while to convince me, but with something as important as one's whole life and maybe eternity, i find it important enough to be a little more sure than just researching and assuming that the "accepted belief" is how it really is. It's hard to get objectivity...

Quote:
If evidence suggests book is not valid, don't read it (yet, it could still be very interesting, as forgery).


True...

Quote:
You changed topic from me "believing someone who says he has evidence". Shall I take it so that you withdraw your claim that I believe people who just say they have evidence and not present it? Because I don't want people to think that about me,


Yes, but i don't know how deep your investigation goes before you do believe the evidence and all sub-ordinate evidence. I'm still curious how far you go.

Quote:
I don't accept that evidence. None of those things listed were evidence for 12 apostles, they weren't even mentioned. Only two of them were supposed evidence for Jesus.


So, you at least check the first level. Now would you have checked the evidence supporting that evidence if you found that it did support what you were looking for? How many terms are in your recursive routine for believing evidence?

Quote:
But there are still explainations of that evidence even for case Jesus didn't exist. These explainations seem much more probable to me, than explainations in which jesus existed. So I stick to more probable explainations. We can discuss these probabilities specifically in that other thread.


You can, but it is a branch topic of one i said i won't speak in except for the initial purpose. I only violated that to the layer of private messages.

Quote:
Yes. So should we stop learning evidence at all, and live in intellectual darknes, because it can in some rare cases be forged? No, we should instead repeatedly challenge and verify every piece of evidence. Of course no one can do it all himself. Science works on p2p basis, and everyone adds his little bit.


I'm saying that the amount of terms in the recursive routine for verification varies directly as the importance of the topic of which the evidence is being used. For a topic of way of life that may even extend into eternal life (if such a thing exists), we don't have room for just accepting "accepted" beliefs. Anything shy of 100% accuresy in validity of evidence is not acceptable. I'm not demanding proof that Jesus didn't exist, i'm just asking for proof that the evidence for that is valid. You and I both know that that can't be done either. All we can do is throw out probabilities. In short, i'm telling you that you're supporting some one who is spouting off things as fact based on "accepted" EVIDENCE. Those last 2 words don't really make the numbers look good to the other team. With only evidence of evidence (somtimes with even more "of evidence"s to the end of that), you're only going to have an effect on people who aren't in it with all heart. The ones who aren't into their faith (being either atheism, christianity, buddhism, hinduism, etc) are going to flip and flop back and forth link a ping-pong ball, irregardlessly, from arguments that sound good. That's all this is... It's all a matter of which sounds better, in which case this argument is pointless because anyone who flips like that doesn't even care enough anyway, and all anyone really does is piss off anyone who is of heart in their faith.

Quote:
Idea is, that everything that can affect as can also be at the end observed by senses. Things that can't be observed don't affect us, and so there is no reason for us


But what if it affects us and only us? If it affects only humans and it can't be experienced with the 5 senses, what can possibly measure it? Many theists, like myself, believe that there are things out there that only affect humans, and nothing else in this universe. Some things may even be too small or indirect to even be measured. Atoms are a good example of things that are too small to be measured. We just assume that what many accept is how things really are. They could be squares orbiting a square object for all we know. They could be cones... We don't know, but we just accept. Science typically accepts that they are spherical, but it's not really scientific to just assume that, now is it? Luckily, there's nothing that i know of that's important that accepts them as spherical.

Quote:
If you disagree with this, give me some example of something that affects us, yet can't be observed.


Atoms... We can only observe indirectly and hope that we're right. Fact is, if we can't observe it, we argue whether it exists or not. Therefor, i can't provide you a non-contraverseal (sp?) answer for that.

Quote:
Believing is for sure not same as accepting evidence. Many people say "I don't have evidence for it, but i believe it".


Perhaps a better word for them would be, "accept." I've had to change my usage of belief alot to get the correct usage down, to prevent any problems with this argument from re-occuring. Your argument is that the word believing does not include this deffinition, can i assume that you accept that it is one of the deffinitions of believe, and that therefor we do believe (accept) solely on our observatioins?

Quote:
You didn't refute anything. All you said was "i think that it maybe can refuted". Just thinking that something can be refuted isn't enough. Evidence remains valid until it refuted. Go on, and refute anything of those things presented to you.


Pardon me, i mis-interpreted the word refute. My interpretation was that refute means "to show un-reliability."

Quote:
And yet, we have understood sooo much of it, and we are still learning new things. If all people in past were thinking same like you, we would still be hunting animals naked in forest. Ability and desire to learn and understand is the thing that made mankind what it is now.


Yes, but the complexity still surpases the complexity of our mind. The complexity of our understanding of the world is still lesser than the complexity of the world, hence why we're still discovering things.

Quote:
Yes, i agree. Nothing can be absolutely proven. But "keeping at least minor doubt" shouldn't mean to refuse to learn evidence, "because it is not 100% sure to be truth".


But at the same time, learning isn't accepting. Back to the analogy of the recursive routine for evidence, how many terms do you feel one should go before learning? With what's accepted being changed every day in different topics, i don't exactly find something being accepted a very stable layer of whether to learn that as evidence or not. I don't have time to watch the news. I want something a little harder than just accepted evidence.

Quote:
No, limits doesn't produce error. Science doesn't comment things outside it's limit. If science is wrong within it's limits, it eventually corrects itself.


It can be wrong due to lack of understanding that which is outside of it's limits. If such an error occures, that error will never be found, because it hasn't found that thing outside of it's limits.

Quote:
BTW: it is spelled "prophet", not "profit"


Sorry, it's a bad habit. I typically don't use the word "prophet," while i use "profit" alot. Therefor when talking about "prophet," i have a habit of using "profit."
Post 22 Dec 2007, 14:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Something could make the others stick out, and some may be afraid to touch the topic due to the multitudes. Some may have been after money, and picking on something supported by someone you know or that your audience may know may not be the best for sales. Also, there may be a form of dis-respect in not writing about Jesus. This could be done to spite the followers of Christ, by saying that Christianity is less important/probable/interesting/etc than other prophets. That would be a cultural influence that we can't be sure existed or not during the culture of then. By not respecting the religion enough to spend time in cutting it down (saying that it's too trivial and/or not worth the time), it's even more of an insult than cutting it down.

Yes, all this is possible, but pretty improbable. In history, we know that such things (that you need to explain lack of evidence for jesus) seldom happen.

Quote:
Quote:
This is one of many improbabilities you have to rely on, to have jesus as historical figure.

The others?

That would be too big topic for now Smile If you want to learn arguments against historical Jesus, i suggest you this excellent article: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Quote:
You also have to take into consideration the historian's knowledge, opinion, trustability, etc. It's an ongoing recursive routine for validating evidence... I'll be honest, it takes a while to convince me, but with something as important as one's whole life and maybe eternity, i find it important enough to be a little more sure than just researching and assuming that the "accepted belief" is how it really is. It's hard to get objectivity...

Yes, that's why you need to rely on p2p like methods. You are free to challenge anything. I assure you that after you challenge 20-30 things and research them, you'll learn to identify most obvious lies very quickly.

Other option is to NOT study at all, and remain just with crap information from massmedia.

Quote:
Yes, but i don't know how deep your investigation goes before you do believe the evidence and all sub-ordinate evidence. I'm still curious how far you go.

I try to accept only "original" evidence. Book written by christian is good evidence for me, I'll learn some basic background about book, and if I don't find anyone one who disputes it's validity, i accept it as evidence. Reference to someone else, is not evidence for me, I have to follow chain of reference until i get to some "original" evidence. Another good evidence is scientific test, archaeological findings, etc...

Quote:
So, you at least check the first level. Now would you have checked the evidence supporting that evidence if you found that it did support what you were looking for? How many terms are in your recursive routine for believing evidence?

It is on opponent to dispute this evidence if it is invalid. Sometimes I do "nested checking" of evidence in my studies, but usually it's enough to check evidence if it is disputed by someone. Undisputed evidence can be relied on, without further supporting it.

Quote:
Quote:
If you disagree with this, give me some example of something that affects us, yet can't be observed.

Atoms... We can only observe indirectly and hope that we're right. Fact is, if we can't observe it, we argue whether it exists or not. Therefor, i can't provide you a non-contraverseal (sp?) answer for that.

I told "can't be observed", not "can't be directly observed"! That's what I say, we don't observe most things directly. Yes, in the end, information must be somehow converted to form that we can input it into our brain, by senses. Idea is, that everything that affects us can be observed, just by act of affecting us itself.

Quote:
Many theists, like myself, believe that there are things out there that only affect humans, and nothing else in this universe.

If they affect us, they can be observed. If god makes you feel happy, you will observe change of your mood. If something can't be observed, then it didn't have any effect, so it didn't affect you.

Quote:
Science typically accepts that they are spherical, but it's not really scientific to just assume that, now is it? Luckily, there's nothing that i know of that's important that accepts them as spherical.

Warning, you are misrepresenting science again. First study what does science say about atoms.

As for "believe", to make this discussion easier, OKay, i will consider "accepting evidence" to fall under term "believe".

Quote:
Yes, but the complexity still surpases the complexity of our mind. The complexity of our understanding of the world is still lesser than the complexity of the world, hence why we're still discovering things.

Fact that we are still discovering things shows that we haven't reached our limits yet. We don't know if complexity of reality surpases that of our mind, maybe yes, maybe no. And we can still increase complexity of our brains, and doing that is within our abilities.

In short, response to your question about trusting evidence is: trust evidence that is not disputed. If evidence is disputed, nest recursively for that one thing. For most fake evidence, there are experts in every field, who will dispute it.
Post 22 Dec 2007, 16:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I just skimmed through this thread and I'll add a few things on the evidence idea.

vid wrote:
Yes, that's why you need to rely on p2p like methods. You are free to challenge anything. I assure you that after you challenge 20-30 things and research them, you'll learn to identify most obvious lies very quickly.
maybe it's your own eyes that are lying to you :lol just jokin

vid wrote:
I try to accept only "original" evidence. Book written by christian is good evidence for me, I'll learn some basic background about book, and if I don't find anyone one who disputes it's validity, i accept it as evidence. Reference to someone else, is not evidence for me, I have to follow chain of reference until i get to some "original" evidence.
Does this apply to hundreds of years old 'books' ? (not necessarily Bible btw!!)

vid wrote:
Another good evidence is scientific test, archaeological findings, etc...
question: how do you prove those are not fake (and I mean the ones who "found" them)? As far as I know, this is only a simple Internet link (if you found it on the net), just like the one which explains fairies exist.. or maybe just a bunch of paper on the newspaper, etc..

why do you trust such links (since you didn't personally yourself "discovered" those things, I doubt you're an archaeologist).

vid wrote:
It is on opponent to dispute this evidence if it is invalid. Sometimes I do "nested checking" of evidence in my studies, but usually it's enough to check evidence if it is disputed by someone.
question: is that "someone" more trustable than, let's say, Jesus? That 'someone' is just some bytes on a web page! It may even not exist...

vid wrote:
Quote:
Atoms... We can only observe indirectly and hope that we're right. Fact is, if we can't observe it, we argue whether it exists or not. Therefor, i can't provide you a non-contraverseal (sp?) answer for that.

I told "can't be observed", not "can't be directly observed"! That's what I say, we don't observe most things directly. Yes, in the end, information must be somehow converted to form that we can input it into our brain, by senses. Idea is, that everything that affects us can be observed, just by act of affecting us itself.
This atom thing made me think about it. What if atomes actually are alternative Universes? This knowledge would surely not 'affect' us, so what? It surely would be interesting (on a sidenote, it does affect us, since we think about it Wink ). This may be important as a philosophical thinking, surely not everyone agrees with the "If it doesn't affect us, it should be dismissed".

vid wrote:
If they affect us, they can be observed. If god makes you feel happy, you will observe change of your mood. If something can't be observed, then it didn't have any effect, so it didn't affect you.
But that doesn't mean it should be dismissed, because that is only your opinion.

vid wrote:
Fact that we are still discovering things shows that we haven't reached our limits yet. We don't know if complexity of reality surpases that of our mind, maybe yes, maybe no. And we can still increase complexity of our brains, and doing that is within our abilities.
What if the brain has actually a wrong composition, and any "complexity adjustments" will still fail to think in a pure logical way? Maybe we should design a different brain that thinks different and works different, but alas, we can't since that means we'll also have to understand it (in order to create it), and it isn't possible with the dumb-structure of this brain Smile

vid wrote:
In short, response to your question about trusting evidence is: trust evidence that is not disputed.
How do you qualify a piece of bytes on the Internet as "evidence". You'll also need to qualify the "cons" (i.e arguments against that evidence) as 'evidence', maybe those arguments are fake as well.



I am not usually active in such threads, but the thing is I am getting annoyed when people trust the Internet links and accept those as evidence, or for the moment that they're even real. Even so-called "experts" might be fake. This is, on the most part, the same as trusting the Bible (i.e put 'links' to the Bible).
Post 22 Dec 2007, 17:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
grey beast wrote:
vid wrote:
I try to accept only "original" evidence. Book written by christian is good evidence for me, I'll learn some basic background about book, and if I don't find anyone one who disputes it's validity, i accept it as evidence. Reference to someone else, is not evidence for me, I have to follow chain of reference until i get to some "original" evidence.

Does this apply to hundreds of years old 'books' ? (not necessarily Bible btw!!)

oh yes, those book has much to tell. Of course "taking book as evidence" doesn't mean i accept things written in book as truth. Book critical of christianity can be evidence for how people saw christianity. Christian apologetics book can be evidence of christian thinking in those times, even though arguments in book may not be true. etc...

Quote:
Quote:
Another good evidence is scientific test, archaeological findings, etc...

question: how do you prove those are not fake (and I mean the ones who "found" them)? As far as I know, this is only a simple Internet link (if you found it on the net), just like the one which explains fairies exist.. or maybe just a bunch of paper on the newspaper, etc..

why do you trust such links (since you didn't personally yourself "discovered" those things, I doubt you're an archaeologist).

This was explained in my last post to kohlrak. If someone publishes something fake, someone else immediately disputes it. If something is undisputed, i see it as pretty reliable. If it is disputed, you must research more about it.

Quote:
This atom thing made me think about it. What if atomes actually are alternative Universes? This knowledge would surely not 'affect' us, so what? It surely would be interesting (on a sidenote, it does affect us, since we think about it ). This may be important as a philosophical thinking, surely not everyone agrees with the "If it doesn't affect us, it should be dismissed".

Yes. You have reached area called "philosphy of science". Science doesn't tell how reality works. It only creates models that accurately represent all collected data. If atoms are mini universe, that beheave same way as described by "small sphere" model, then both these models are scientifically fine. In such cases, science tends to choose simpler model.

Quote:
What if the brain has actually a wrong composition, and any "complexity adjustments" will still fail to think in a pure logical way? Maybe we should design a different brain that thinks different and works different, but alas, we can't since that means we'll also have to understand it (in order to create it), and it isn't possible with the dumb-structure of this brain

I believe we eventually will understand brain. We already know a fucking lot about it, but there is still much more to learn. We can make modifications too, for example creating "always happy" or "always sad" people is possible with simple damaging one part of brain. Or, you can make people "living for current moment", with simple removing part of brain responsible for planning. One will continue to live, he just won't be able to plan actions (and thus beheave socially, etc.)

Quote:
How do you qualify a piece of bytes on the Internet as "evidence".

Do you qualify molecules of ink on paper as evidence? Do you qualify electrical states in brain is evidence? Do you qualify aerial waves of spoken words as evidence? I do, what is important is content, not it's representation.

Quote:
You'll also need to qualify the "cons" (i.e arguments against that evidence) as 'evidence', maybe those arguments are fake as well.

Yes. In case something is disputed, you must recursively nest, and solve the dispute, until returning to previous piece of evidence.
Post 22 Dec 2007, 17:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Hi vid,

vid wrote:
oh yes, those book has much to tell. Of course "taking book as evidence" doesn't mean i accept things written in book as truth. Book critical of christianity can be evidence for how people saw christianity. Christian apologetics book can be evidence of christian thinking in those times, even though arguments in book may not be true. etc...
arguments on the web aren't the same thing?

vid wrote:
This was explained in my last post to kohlrak. If someone publishes something fake, someone else immediately disputes it. If something is undisputed, i see it as pretty reliable. If it is disputed, you must research more about it.
sorry, i wasn't clear
i meant, how do you know those who disputed it are real or even took the time to "read" that fake thing. Perhaps it is those that dispute it that are fake. And if we go to conspiracy theories, the story will never end Smile

vid wrote:
Yes. You have reached area called "philosphy of science". Science doesn't tell how reality works. It only creates models that accurately represent all collected data. If atoms are mini universe, that beheave same way as described by "small sphere" model, then both these models are scientifically fine. In such cases, science tends to choose simpler model.
How do you define "simpler" model? (because there ain't any proofs that state which one is simpler).

how do you define object A is simpler (or more logical) than object B?

Quote:
I believe we eventually will understand brain. We already know a fucking lot about it, but there is still much more to learn. We can make modifications too, for example creating "always happy" or "always sad" people is possible with simple damaging one part of brain.
I meant, to understand how it works, not what parts do what, like how we think. Let's say we create AIs in sillicon, right? surely, those will use the EXACT same thinking-structure as our brain, because we CANNOT know any other more 'capable' structure because WE are limited BY OUR BRAINS.

let's just say that the fundamental structure of our brains is flawed and there are "Better" algorithms for creating a brain, unfortunately we CANNOT comprehend them no matter how hard we try, because after all we are all using these "obsolete" brain design Smile

vid wrote:
Do you qualify molecules of ink on paper as evidence? Do you qualify electrical states in brain is evidence? Do you qualify aerial waves of spoken words as evidence? I do, what is important is content, not it's representation.
when I said how do you qualify some piece of text on the net as evidence, I meant how do you know the text is "real" and not fake (e.g: EVERYONE could have written it).
Post 22 Dec 2007, 17:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
grey beast wrote:
vid wrote:

oh yes, those book has much to tell. Of course "taking book as evidence" doesn't mean i accept things written in book as truth. Book critical of christianity can be evidence for how people saw christianity. Christian apologetics book can be evidence of christian thinking in those times, even though arguments in book may not be true. etc...
arguments on the web aren't the same thing?

yes, they are exactly same thing.

Quote:
i meant, how do you know those who disputed it are real or even took the time to "read" that fake thing. Perhaps it is those that dispute it that are fake.

yes - only way is the hard way, you must check all arguments against evidence.

Quote:
And if we go to conspiracy theories, the story will never end

No, it does end. Sometimes the "recursion" is very deep, and you have to spend few days reading arguments. But the tree of serious refutations always has end.

Quote:
How do you define "simpler" model? (because there ain't any proofs that state which one is simpler).
how do you define object A is simpler (or more logical) than object B?

Common sense. Pick one you like more. In some cases, both models are good, each better in different case. For example, there are multiple models of quantum physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Quantum_models

Quote:
I meant, to understand how it works, not what parts do what, like how we think. Let's say we create AIs in sillicon, right? surely, those will use the EXACT same thinking-structure as our brain, because we CANNOT know any other more 'capable' structure because WE are limited BY OUR BRAINS.

I doubt that. There are many areas of brain functioning, in which we can already design something better. Why couldn't we do same in other areas (like reasoning, generalization) too?

Quote:
when I said how do you qualify some piece of text on the net as evidence, I meant how do you know the text is "real" and not fake (e.g: EVERYONE could have written it).

You mean like faulty translation / transcription of old book? These are seldom falsified. Author of translation / transcription is usually known, and doing this would completely discredit him. Also, if someone is devoted enough to spend month doing this, i doubt he would flaw his hard work forever by such act. And still, same argument "if it's bad, someone would have noticed" works quite good.
Post 22 Dec 2007, 18:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.