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
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
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.
Don't go too far or you'll find the CIA after you Laughing

vid wrote:
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?
Well it's like this:

Monkeys can't understand, let's say, calculus. That means they won't be able to create something that uses calculus (since they can't comprehend the very notion of it). Thus they won't be able to create a brain that will function based on calculus.

this was only a silly example, but it's the same with us. To create something we have to understand it. To create the 'different' brain (that is, to work different, not with neurons, etc..) we'll have to understand that 'different' brain, and since I've already stated that that brain is superior and we cannot think like it, we cannot create it, because our brains are limited, and that means we can't understand the new brain, and thus can't create it (if not by accident though!).

The AI that is usually in discussions is not a new brain, it'll be a brain similar to ours, with the same algorithms (i.e neuron-based). What I am talking about is a brain that works COMPLETELY different. To create it we have to understand it. To understand it means that we have to use our brains, and since I have assumed our brains are limited for that, then we can't.

I hope you get the idea.

vid wrote:
And still, same argument "if it's bad, someone would have noticed" works quite good.
I presume that "someone" is also from the internet, so it can be as fake as the original author.
Post 22 Dec 2007, 18:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
I got the idea. We don't know yet, so I am still just quessing.

I think your idea isn't right. Mental capabilities are created by VERY simple principes, and extra capabilities are added just by extra "circuits" tuned to some extra work. Monkey's brains work in same way ours do (neural network), and we can understand calculus just because extra parts of brain we have. Brain functioning has to be very simple, and brain can be so powerful only thanks to sheer power. I'd suggest you to read about latest discoveries in reversing brain.

Another way we could advance ourselves would be to replicate nature's way under fastened conditions. We can make 1'000'000 mutated people, wait until they grow, pick best one, and continue process with his offspring. Not very moral, but it would definitively work, as it worked for creating humans.

Quote:
I presume that "someone" is also from the internet, so it can be as fake as the original author.

I already told you: Yes, you have to doubt refutations too.
Post 22 Dec 2007, 18:25
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
I havn't been able to keep up with all my business, but one thing i had to comment on vid....

Quote:
And still, same argument "if it's bad, someone would have noticed" works quite good.


Here are some search results with google. I just copied and pasted them, so some of the newlines, tabs, and such will be off.

Quote:
Pie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA pie is a baked food, with a baked shell usually made of pastry dough that covers or completely contains a filling of fruit, meat, fish, vegetables, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

Weebl and Bob - piepie. Next · Click To See The Music Featured in This Episode · Buy the Weebl & Bob DVD Today! Tell a Friend. Do you think a friend would really like this? ...
www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/pie.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

Dessert Pies Recipes - Desserts - All RecipesLooking for dessert pie recipes? Allrecipes has more than 1570 trusted dessert pie recipes complete with ratings, reviews and baking tips.
allrecipes.com/Recipes/Desserts/Pies/Main.aspx - 60k - Cached - Similar pages

PIE OEM LEADER Manufacturer OEM IntegrationManufacturer of OEM integration devices car audio installation accessories and Apple iPod Interface.
www.pie.net/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

Pumpkin Pie for all!Let's make pumpkin pie for the whole class! Imagine making enough pie so that everyone could have a piece. How about enough pie to take one home.
score.kings.k12.ca.us/lessons/pumpkin.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages


That was with http://www.google.ca

Quote:
PIE OEM LEADER Manufacturer OEM IntegrationManufacturer of OEM integration devices car audio installation accessories and Apple iPod Interface.
www.pie.net/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

Dessert Pies Recipes - Desserts - All RecipesLooking for dessert pie recipes? Allrecipes has more than 1570 trusted dessert pie recipes complete with ratings, reviews and baking tips.
allrecipes.com/Recipes/Desserts/Pies/Main.aspx - 60k - Cached - Similar pages

Pie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA pie is a baked food, with a baked shell usually made of pastry dough that covers or completely contains a filling of fruit, meat, fish, vegetables, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

National Pie Day -The American Pie Council - www.piecouncil.orgCreated by the American Pie Council, National Pie Day is dedicated to the celebration of pie. As part of our American heritage, this day is a perfect ...
www.piecouncil.org/national.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

Pies, History of PiesThe first pies, called "coffins" or "coffyns" were savory meat pies with the crusts or pastry being tall, straight-sided with sealed-on floors and lids. ...
whatscookingamerica.net/History/PieHistory.htm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages


That was from http://www.google.com. The site you choose usually depends on your reigion. Let's say that most of the debators are from Slovakia, Slovenia, America, Canada, and Poland, while most of the scientists come from france, german, spain, england, etc... Would not the scientists get different results than the debators? Who's to say that they would even look for things to dispute anyway? Just because it's not disputed doesn't mean it's true, it just means that no one has argued with it. There could be any number of reasons why no on argued with it, and one of those would happen to be "no one saw it except you."
Post 24 Dec 2007, 02:00
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:
Would not the scientists get different results than the debators? Who's to say that they would even look for things to dispute anyway?

Of course you have to learn how to search. It's not always as simple as typing first thing that comes to your mind to google.

Quote:
Just because it's not disputed doesn't mean it's true, it just means that no one has argued with it.

Never said it does. But if no one disputed it yet, and you are not expert in field, then even though it may not be truth, you probably won't be able to dispute it anyway.

Here you are again suggesting "we can't check if evidence 100% true, let's not look for evidence at all". I don't say you to trust things that aren't disputed at 100%. Reread what I told.

Quote:
There could be any number of reasons why no on argued with it, and one of those would happen to be "no one saw it except you.

Still, this method works pretty good. You can try it out yourself: find me some false claim (like "exodus ever happened"), and i'll find someone who disputes it. Of course only testable claims count.
Post 24 Dec 2007, 10:47
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]Of course you have to learn how to search. It's not always as simple as typing first thing that comes to your mind to google.[quote]

Yea, if i'm a scientist, i'm going to randomly going to type into google "bible 'books left out'" etc... I'm not going to do that. That's unrealistic. Any decent scientist isn't going to have time and/nor the interest to sit there and look for everything on the internet that is in error and contradicts their studies. Not to mention, some countries have results dramatically different than others, like http://www.google.cn for instance. Most of the scientists who would know of this topic would probably in and around the area of Israel, where they would be digging and testing for information for and/or against Jesus. I don't know about israel, but it's surrounding countries are well known for Facism, so if communist china can block sites, their politically oposite facist countries can as well. They may even have restrictions for what they can post online to dispute. Once you're in a country like that, you're bound by their laws until you leave.

Quote:
Never said it does. But if no one disputed it yet, and you are not expert in field, then even though it may not be truth, you probably won't be able to dispute it anyway.


That pretty much nails the coffin shut on the case of assuming that if it's not dispute that you can take it as evidence. The ones who would know, especially about this topic, may not be able to make their stuff public, yet. Makes it really difficult to dispute it. Infact, i could make a site that says that Jesus was a moutain lion in north america, but the romans didn't know they got that far before pangia(sp?) split up, even though that happened long before them. But, no one would dispute that if i came up with a slightly convincing reasoning behind it. Doesn't mean it's accuret.

Quote:
Here you are again suggesting "we can't check if evidence 100% true, let's not look for evidence at all". I don't say you to trust things that aren't disputed at 100%. Reread what I told.


Not what i'm saying. I'm saying that we dispute it's logic and sit here and look at the presentor of this evidence, and look how truthful that they can be. 1 owner of a site who has a bookstore, large tables of this and that, and other things, can't realistically have double checked everything, and is constantly working to make sure no-one discovered something that puts their site in a state of error. Even with groups running a site, it's unlikely that anyone will update their information on this, unless they were directly addressed. They see no reason to. Why, if a scientist proposed that they have evidence that all the bible changing never really kept those changes, and that those just became denominations of the church (while still using the same name until the reformation), would anyone change their site to match that? I mean common, if you are insistant upon making people no believe Jesus, until you're directly addressed, you're not going to change. And even when directly addressed, you may not even change.

Quote:
Still, this method works pretty good. You can try it out yourself: find me some false claim (like "exodus ever happened"), and i'll find someone who disputes it. Of course only testable claims count.


And how far back is testable? I havn't found anything testible yet. You're assuming that some one with knowledge would find that source and/or the subject itself and dispute it. Then you assume that you'd find any disputing of it. I don't know how to test if those dates are real, since i don't have the paper documents myself. Anything there could be forged easily, since anyone can type it up with a keyboard.
Post 24 Dec 2007, 14:57
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 don't know about israel, but it's surrounding countries are well known for Facism, so if communist china can block sites, their politically oposite facist countries can as well. They may even have restrictions for what they can post online to dispute. Once you're in a country like that, you're bound by their laws until you leave.

Come on, you resist evidence because it is not 100% sure, but you keep up argumenting with your "i think something might be this way", without having slightest idea about it.

Quote:
Quote:
Never said it does. But if no one disputed it yet, and you are not expert in field, then even though it may not be truth, you probably won't be able to dispute it anyway.
That pretty much nails the coffin shut on the case of assuming that if it's not dispute that you can take it as evidence.

no, it doesn't. of course, if you don't trust all experts in entire world to do their job properly, you're screwed without evidence. This assuming is not always 100% correct, but it's best way to quickly distinguish proper evidence from false one, with good probability ratio. If you hit rare case where you didn't find refutation of bad evidence, someone can still probably correct you after you publish your work, and so you can accordingly correct it too.

Quote:
The ones who would know, especially about this topic, may not be able to make their stuff public, yet.

why?

Quote:
Infact, i could make a site that says that Jesus was a moutain lion in north america, but the romans didn't know they got that far before pangia(sp?) split up, even though that happened long before them. But, no one would dispute that if i came up with a slightly convincing reasoning behind it. Doesn't mean it's accuret.

If you would make something like this, you would hardly find some serious evidence to back it. If you make site without serious evidence, there is nothing to dispute. At best, people would tell you're idiot. If you would put some seriously looking evidence for this (hardly imaginable), then yes, someone will most likely dispute it!

Quote:
And how far back is testable? I havn't found anything testible

Nothing is 100% sure about history, but if you have one option that is 99.9% probable, and 5 options that are 0.02% probable, you practically know answer. You will get wrong in every 1000th case, but still it's better than knowing nothing, because "there is no 100% evidence". You seem to prefer this second option for some reason Sad

Quote:
You're assuming that some one with knowledge would find that source and/or the subject itself and dispute it. Then you assume that you'd find any disputing of it.

Eventually, if you research enough, yes. Remember we are not speaking about single source and single disputation. Most ideas are thought of multiple times, copied, and spread. So do disputations. Usually there are far more than single disputations.

Quote:
I don't know how to test if those dates are real, since i don't have the paper documents myself. Anything there could be forged easily, since anyone can type it up with a keyboard.

Could be, but this happens extremely rarely. If you still doubt however, you can check by comparing to independent sources. Most translations / transcription give their sources.

Of course, you can't check everything yourself from firsthand source. That is idiotic idea. Instead, there is peer review, which works much more effectively than if you'd check everything yourself.

What is your point? Are you *seriously* trying to say that we shouldn't seek evidence, because we can never be 100% sure it is true???
Post 24 Dec 2007, 15:28
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:
Come on, you resist evidence because it is not 100% sure, but you keep up argumenting with your "i think something might be this way", without having slightest idea about it.


That's the problem with you, vid. You only accept something you find through google. You don't accept logical and/or probable thought. The only logics in your head are the logics from someone else's thinking. Is it not probable, vid? Is it not probable that if communists hide information, that their opposits, the facists, would as well?

Quote:
no, it doesn't. of course, if you don't trust all experts in entire world to do their job properly, you're screwed without evidence. This assuming is not always 100% correct, but it's best way to quickly distinguish proper evidence from false one, with good probability ratio. If you hit rare case where you didn't find refutation of bad evidence, someone can still probably correct you after you publish your work, and so you can accordingly correct it too.


Some wrongs aren't exactly worth the risk. Are you going to trust that evidence with, let's say, a new nuclear reactor? Let's say that some one just got a bunch of evidence to support a theory of his to make a better, more efficient nuclear reactor. The only way to test his theory turns out to actually build one. 99.9% chance his evidence was right, 0.1% chance that it's off. Do you want them building that reactor to test with beside your home? Vid, maybe for somethings that kind of style is ok. But for Nuclear reactors, world changing things, and the possibility of perpetual living, i don't exactly see that kind of assumption a very safe one. I'm not sure very many people want to take such risks. Especially, because the ratio isn't always even 99.9%... Instead of listening to websites, do some thinking of your own.

Quote:
why?


You must not have ever heard of "Secret Polices" have you? And no, not policies, polices.

Quote:
If you would make something like this, you would hardly find some serious evidence to back it. If you make site without serious evidence, there is nothing to dispute. At best, people would tell you're idiot. If you would put some seriously looking evidence for this (hardly imaginable), then yes, someone will most likely dispute it!


I'm quoting both, because it pertains to both...

Quote:
Nothing is 100% sure about history, but if you have one option that is 99.9% probable, and 5 options that are 0.02% probable, you practically know answer. You will get wrong in every 1000th case, but still it's better than knowing nothing, because "there is no 100% evidence". You seem to prefer this second option for some reason


So you're saying that if i were to do that right now, some random person is going to automatically find it and dispute it? Do you know how often my site actually gets visited, vid? Not very often. Most of which are people looking for something specific like japanese lessons (which idon't have), programming source codes, and so forth. I have automatic logging on my server application. I know what links they're visiting. None of them are interested anything aside from that, or at least they havn't shown that. Infact, my index page was only requested 19 times last month. My teamspeak logo was downloaded 76 times... But you have to divide that by 2 since teamspeak downloads it twice for some reason. That is 38 times. That means the home page to teamspeak interest ratio is 19/38, which is 1/2... Some of the home page requests were from me, and some of the teamspeak logo requests were from me, but the interest seems to be more on the teamspeak server than my home page. Most people just want something in particular, therefor i can't imagin a large list of people comming to dispute my evidence of Jesus being a moutain lion.

Quote:
Eventually, if you research enough, yes. Remember we are not speaking about single source and single disputation. Most ideas are thought of multiple times, copied, and spread. So do disputations. Usually there are far more than single disputations.


One must find the disputation to copy it. Only the most obvious of disputable things will be disputed many times.

Quote:
Could be, but this happens extremely rarely. If you still doubt however, you can check by comparing to independent sources. Most translations / transcription give their sources.


We wouldn't know how rare unless we were aware of all cases. Maybe alot of them are very good. You said yourself (or maybe one of your sources) that christians forge all the time that some one said something, and really didn't.

Quote:
Of course, you can't check everything yourself from firsthand source. That is idiotic idea. Instead, there is peer review, which works much more effectively than if you'd check everything yourself.


But not effective enough for something as important as eternity, a nuclear reactor, etc. If there is such a thing as eternity, it is more important than anything else, because it lasts forever. But, of course, i'm not expecting you to see the importance of an eternity if you don't believe one, which i'm assuming here that you don't.

Quote:
What is your point? Are you *seriously* trying to say that we shouldn't seek evidence, because we can never be 100% sure it is true???


Seek evidence and make it 100% true. Don't throw it off into such a risky topic until it is 100% true. In this topic, i find it almost (if not entirely) impossible to do that. That's why i don't like scientists who spend lots of donation money to prove or dis-prove religion when instead they can be doing something useful with it like finding a cure for aids or colonizing our oceans so we have more room for more people. Instead of bothering with things that you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt and therefor always be disputed, why don't we solve some real problems we have now, like over-population.
Post 24 Dec 2007, 16:29
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:
That's the problem with you, vid. You only accept something you find through google. You don't accept logical and/or probable thought. The only logics in your head are the logics from someone else's thinking. Is it not probable, vid? Is it not probable that if communists hide information, that their opposits, the facists, would as well?

This is not truth. I do use logic as well. But if would you study something about logic, not just claim using it, you would learn that logic can only be applied to proper premises to get proper conclusions. Obtaining proper (in reality never 100%, but very probable) premises is the gathering of evidence i am talking about.

If you know next to nothing about fascism, and next to nothing about communism, greatest logic doesn't help you to make conclusions about properties of fascism based on properties of communism.

Quote:
Are you going to trust that evidence with, let's say, a new nuclear reactor? Let's say that some one just got a bunch of evidence to support a theory of his to make a better, more efficient nuclear reactor. The only way to test his theory turns out to actually build one. 99.9% chance his evidence was right, 0.1% chance that it's off. Do you want them building that reactor to test with beside your home?

Supposing they build it properly, and test it safely (YES, it is possible), then i definitively would.

Quote:
You must not have ever heard of "Secret Polices" have you? And no, not policies, polices.

refatutation of arguments is censored by secret police only in very rare cases. This is fallacy you repeatedly use: I am talking about rules that apply most of times. You try disprove them by pointing out some rare exceptions. Rare exception doesn't affect fact that something happens very often

Quote:
So you're saying that if i were to do that right now, some random person is going to automatically find it and dispute it? Do you know how often my site actually gets visited, vid? Not very often.

What content does your site contain? Note that most refutations are scientific works, which are peer reviewed, and automatically indexed and well searchable, unlike random MMORPG fan sites.

Quote:
One must find the disputation to copy it. Only the most obvious of disputable things will be disputed many times.

Even if there is single disputation, with proper searching you will eventually find it. Also, still more people are gonna use same arguments to dispute something. And more people are gonna repeat original argument, which again prompts more people to dispute that argument. Yes, IN PRACTICE, if there is disputation to argument, it is not next-to-impossible to find it, as you suggest.

Quote:
We wouldn't know how rare unless we were aware of all cases. Maybe alot of them are very good. You said yourself (or maybe one of your sources) that christians forge all the time that some one said something, and really didn't.

Fortunately current scientist don't do this, unlike early christians. So again: it happens rarely, and so it doesn't affect my "most of times" rules at all.

Quote:
But not effective enough for something as important as eternity, a nuclear reactor, etc. If there is such a thing as eternity, it is more important than anything else, because it lasts forever. But, of course, i'm not expecting you to see the importance of an eternity if you don't believe one, which i'm assuming here that you don't.

It is still more effective than believing based on emotions ("I don't believe this, becayse if it would be truth, it would be terrible"). Yes, it is not 100%, maybe not enough for you, but it is still much more probable than any other method you choose. If 99% is not enough for you, why do you choose something that's 5% probable (eg. unfounded by ANY evidence, and contradicting existing evidence) over it?

Quote:
Seek evidence and make it 100% true.

That, as YOU pointed out several times, is impossible. For anything, not just disproving religion. And science is supposed to explore everything, including science. Historical sciences are especially meant to explore real history, not one pushed by church to back it's claims.
Post 24 Dec 2007, 17:46
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:
This is not truth. I do use logic as well. But if would you study something about logic, not just claim using it, you would learn that logic can only be applied to proper premises to get proper conclusions. Obtaining proper (in reality never 100%, but very probable) premises is the gathering of evidence i am talking about.


And who the hell are you to say what's proper? I don't find the internet the most decent source of anything. The only real source is your own experiences, not those of another. Jeeze, it dosn't take much to just trust some one's opinion, but it takes more intellegence to make one of your own.

Quote:
If you know next to nothing about fascism, and next to nothing about communism, greatest logic doesn't help you to make conclusions about properties of fascism based on properties of communism.


Assuming that i know next to nothing about facism, but i do know of facism, despite my referance to secret police.

Quote:
Supposing they build it properly, and test it safely (YES, it is possible), then i definitively would.


How do you know it is possible when you don't even know how it is changed? You would trust the tech dudes? Glad i'm not your family.

Quote:
refatutation of arguments is censored by secret police only in very rare cases. This is fallacy you repeatedly use: I am talking about rules that apply most of times. You try disprove them by pointing out some rare exceptions. Rare exception doesn't affect fact that something happens very often


How would you know? Consider this, would not there not be censorship of the censorship? How rare is it? If i was to censor something, i wouldn't want to alarm people by admitting that i had to censor something. That's a real good way to display how good you are, by showing that you had to censor something.

Quote:
What content does your site contain? Note that most refutations are scientific works, which are peer reviewed, and automatically indexed and well searchable, unlike random MMORPG fan sites.


My site is more of a vending. It's a collection of web-pages, but i mostly use it for hosting things to be used some where else. Though, i could easily restructure the site if i needed to. One of these days, i'll have to re-organize it, but i could if i needed to.

Quote:
Even if there is single disputation, with proper searching you will eventually find it.


Assuming that the disputation would even be available to a search engine. This isn't always true. The problem with you conflicting with my evidence is that one really can't argue with you, for we'd have to find an example which isn't found on a search engine, or at least Google. That's because we would have to use google to find such a site, but that dosn't mean that the dispute isn't there. This isn't actually rare. Many websites won't put their site available for googling. I was half tempted to make it un-available to google, but i changed my mind. I wish i hadn't changed my mind, cause now i get the occasional pornography spammer on my site and people using my site as their own personal hosting for myspace and xanga. It may be possible that there are many groups of scientists who would come together and make such messages boards and such, but not want random outsiders comming and messing with it. Discussions there could dispute alot of things, but if it's not submitted to a search engine, it won't appear in search results.

Quote:
Fortunately current scientist don't do this, unlike early christians. So again: it happens rarely, and so it doesn't affect my "most of times" rules at all.


How the hell would you know that they don't? Vid, if you have any distinctive flaw in your personality, it would be your trust. You trust too easily in the now. I have any reason to believe that the early christians lie more than todays scientists. In fact, i reasoning of the opposite.

Quote:
It is still more effective than believing based on emotions ("I don't believe this, becayse if it would be truth, it would be terrible"). Yes, it is not 100%, maybe not enough for you, but it is still much more probable than any other method you choose. If 99% is not enough for you, why do you choose something that's 5% probable (eg. unfounded by ANY evidence, and contradicting existing evidence) over it?


i have personal reasons for believing in the lord. Reasons which i can't substantiate. I thought i made this clear to you in private messages some time ago. Many people do. Many people are born into the religion and have never found a reason to convert. With christianity, it isn't 5% chance. The bible's very being written is evidence of the lord. Anyone could have written it, but if i were like you, vid, and trusted people not to lie, i would believe the bible. I'm surprised you don't, actually. As much as you believe that stuff you see on the web, written by people who aren't as afraid to lie as those fearing the punishment of God if they did, how can you not believe the bible as well? Well, i guess no one lies except for us desperate christians who always lie to make sure people believe us, because we must be wrong. Scientists can't lie, unlike christians who, despite fearing of going to hell for doing the sin of lieing, would lie right through out teeth to make you ignorant like us. I'm not saying that atheists and secularists are liers, i'm just saying that they aren't as afraid as some one who believes that some one is constantly watching them and will hold them accountable for it.

Quote:
That, as YOU pointed out several times, is impossible. For anything, not just disproving religion. And science is supposed to explore everything, including science. Historical sciences are especially meant to explore real history, not one pushed by church to back it's claims.


Exactly, it is impossible. My point is, you're sitting here backing up slander of my religion and the people who backed it in the past. You can't be 100% sure, therefor it is to be considered slander. I've been using all maybes, probablies, and so forth. I've given you alot of "rare cases." Any *ONE* of them could happen that would throw the whole thing off, but i'm giving you more than one "rare case" which i don't even believe is rare. I've sat here and sat out and watched many debates with you, vid. One thing i notice right away is that instead of using your own thought up knowledge, your own conjectures, your own thoughts, you summarize a site and spit it out as if it should be as reliable to us as the bible was to the Puritans. All i've ever seen from you, vid, was that you can google. All your posts are about a link and/or defending a link. We havn't seen much else from you.

I want to hear if anyone has anything to stick up for Tom's ideas from some one here, not a current events drone. I want to hear an intellegent motive. Can anyone come up in their head, with a reason why Christians would lie, despite being afraid of burning in hell for it? People do things for reasons, i want to hear the why. I wanna know why these people would risk going to hell, for they likely would have believed they would have for lieing. I want a debate based on intellegence (thought), not on luck (trusting current day things out of personal emotions and/or googling). Google's good here and there, but for an issue like this, some more intellegent methods should be taken, but even then no 100% answer would result, and it would still have been injust for making such a dis-respective, un-tolerant, peace-disrupting remark right around a holiday very important to christians.
Post 25 Dec 2007, 04:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Just FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Wikipedia wrote:
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Post 25 Dec 2007, 06:55
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:
And who the hell are you to say what's proper? I don't find the internet the most decent source of anything. The only real source is your own experiences, not those of another. Jeeze, it dosn't take much to just trust some one's opinion, but it takes more intellegence to make one of your own.

Shit, do I have to repeat myself once again? All the time, I was explaining how to find and distinguish proper evidence, regardless if it's from internet, books, newspapers, grandma, or whatever.

Quote:
Quote:
refatutation of arguments is censored by secret police only in very rare cases. This is fallacy you repeatedly use: I am talking about rules that apply most of times. You try disprove them by pointing out some rare exceptions. Rare exception doesn't affect fact that something happens very often

How would you know? Consider this, would not there not be censorship of the censorship? How rare is it? If i was to censor something, i wouldn't want to alarm people by admitting that i had to censor something. That's a real good way to display how good you are, by showing that you had to censor something.

Seems you've gotten offtopic here. I was talking about fallacy you do. Anyway, please rewrite your text to some simpler gramatical construct. I really don't understand "would not there not be" :/

Quote:
Assuming that the disputation would even be available to a search engine. This isn't always true.

Same fallacy again. You are trying to dispute "most of times" rule with some rare unprobable case.

Quote:
How the hell would you know that they don't? Vid, if you have any distinctive flaw in your personality, it would be your trust. You trust too easily in the now. I have any reason to believe that the early christians lie more than todays scientists. In fact, i reasoning of the opposite.

Scientists, if lying, are discovered very soon. Reason is that scientist have to make their experiments in repeatable way. Most experiments are eventually repeated, and thus checked.

Yes, again there are some rare cases where this is not true, but that doesn't affect "most of times" rule. Do not make same logical mistake by trying to point these out.

Quote:
Exactly, it is impossible. My point is, you're sitting here backing up slander of my religion and the people who backed it in the past. You can't be 100% sure, therefor it is to be considered slander. I've been using all maybes, probablies, and so forth. I've given you alot of "rare cases." Any *ONE* of them could happen that would throw the whole thing off, but i'm giving you more than one "rare case" which i don't even believe is rare.

So your point is that i can't refute your religion with 100% certainity. Yes, I agree that - I can't. Problem is that I can do it with 90%, or 99%, or 99.99% certainity. Never 100%, but enough for any sane person. Btw, term "scientifical truth" means something like "proven beyond doubt", not "proven 100%".

Quote:
I've sat here and sat out and watched many debates with you, vid. One thing i notice right away is that instead of using your own thought up knowledge, your own conjectures, your own thoughts, you summarize a site and spit it out as if it should be as reliable to us as the bible was to the Puritans. All i've ever seen from you, vid, was that you can google. All your posts are about a link and/or defending a link. We havn't seen much else from you.

Depends on topic of debate.
- I think this exact debate we are in now is example where i was explaining science in my own words, without throwing in much links.
- You never can use logic alone, there always must be some data (preferably backed, by reference to evidence). I already explained this - logic needs correct premises.
- In debate like "is global warming occuring", there is very little left for logic, only real facts count Either data say it is occuring, or not. In there, I'm gonna prefer meteorological station data and works of experts over my own mind constructs based on unfounded premises.

Quote:
Can anyone come up in their head, with a reason why Christians would lie, despite being afraid of burning in hell for it? People do things for reasons, i want to hear the why. I wanna know why these people would risk going to hell, for they likely would have believed they would have for lieing.

OK, let me use logic here: Do you think that all those over 30 gospels are truth, or are some forgery of early christians? Unless you consider all of them true, it is nice example of fogery in practice.

And regarding motives, check for example Eusebius, who himself polemized if it is okay to use lies to reach some "good outcome" (eg. persuade people of truthfulness of christianity).

Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel), Book 12 wrote:

XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment

PLATO: But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?

'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.'

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.


Quote:
I want a debate based on intellegence (thought), not on luck (trusting current day things out of personal emotions and/or googling). Google's good here and there, but for an issue like this, some more intellegent methods should be taken, but even then no 100% answer would result, and it would still have been injust for making such a dis-respective, un-tolerant, peace-disrupting remark right around a holiday very important to christians.

You got some serious problem with google. Google is much like library index, and articles much like books, nothing more. It's the content that matters.
Post 25 Dec 2007, 09:59
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
kohlrak wrote:
...The bible's very being written is evidence of the lord.
umm, which bible would that be? How about the Koran? How about the earliest Christian writings, no longer incorporated into "the" bible, for example, the gospel according to Peter? You remember him, right?
Bart D. Ehrman wrote:
There is no way of knowing whether during the time of Serapion of Antioch (end of the second century) the Christians of Rhossus ever heard of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Their Gospel was the Gospel of Peter, until the bishop asserted his authority and banned its use....What we can know is that the Gospel {of Peter} was being read not just in Syria but also in Egypt....

http://www.faithfulreader.com/reviews/0195182499.asp
Umm, kohlrak, where is this famous Gospel of {Saint} Peter, today?
The book, "Lost Christianities" is well written, and the author is a faculty member at a prestigious school of religion at University of North Carolina. I don't think that "the" bible exists, kohlrak. I resolutely disagree with your assessment that "its" presence constitutes evidence of supernatural intervention. All of these surviving documents and fragments of documents, written 1900 years ago, unearthed in recent decades, indicate, contrarily, evidence of conventional human activity. Where is the need to invoke supernatural explanations for their authorship? Alternatively, if creative writing from only one century (during the past five millenia of written messages from one human to another,) is to direct all human activity, why not choose the 19th century? Existence of "THE" authentic bible indicates both a large quantity of gullibility, together with a substantial quantity of people with money they don't require, willing to spend it supporting some pedophiles.
Merry Christmas.
Smile
Post 25 Dec 2007, 11:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
kohlrak: Tom made good point. Next time you speak about "bible", don't forget to specify which bible you mean.

Even today, many different versions are in use in different denominations / churches / religions. And there were many more versions in past.
Post 25 Dec 2007, 12:55
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:
umm, which bible would that be? How about the Koran? How about the earliest Christian writings, no longer incorporated into "the" bible, for example, the gospel according to Peter? You remember him, right?


I referance deffinition 1 in most dictionary, the deffinition of "early christian writings."

Quote:
kohlrak: Tom made good point. Next time you speak about "bible", don't forget to specify which bible you mean.

Even today, many different versions are in use in different denominations / churches / religions. And there were many more versions in past.


The only modified version i've ever heard of still being in use today is the mormon bible. It's modifications exist as a completely seperate book (physical book, not book in the bible). Correct me if there are any versions other than those two which are still in use today.

Quote:
The book, "Lost Christianities" is well written, and the author is a faculty member at a prestigious school of religion at University of North Carolina.


So is, "The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ" by Gary R. Habermas. I just picked it up off the top of my dad's bible. It looked interesting. I didn't read it all, but i do know it dosn't cover everything. But it covers quite a bit that was covered here. Flat out contradicts something vid has said. Quite a large list of books from which it is cited, but individual lines are cited, making it hard to tie what evdence with what book. There's also another book that was handed to me, "The Case for the Real Jesus" by Lee Strobel, so that i may speak of the gospel of peter.

Quote:
umm, which bible would that be? How about the Koran? How about the earliest Christian writings, no longer incorporated into "the" bible, for example, the gospel according to Peter? You remember him, right?

Umm, kohlrak, where is this famous Gospel of {Saint} Peter, today?


I'll quote instead of saying my own ideas, for once. Now, i havn't a clue who he's talking to here, but i still find it interesting. many typos may exist because i'm not looking at the screen.

Lee Strobel wrote:
Next I turned to the "Gosepel of Peter," knowing that when i was callled it by that title, I was making an assumption that may very well not be correct. "Scholars aren't even sure they've got the 'Gospel of Peter,' are they?" I asked.

"No," he replied. "They're not.

"Then why has it been called by that name?"

"The document was found in 1880s, in Akhmîm, Egypt, in a codex inside the coffin of a Christian monk who died in the ninth century. THis codex was the Apocalypse of Peter, an account of the martydom of St. Julian from the Byzantine era, fragments of Greek Enoch, and a gospel fragment without its beginning or end, so there's no title. But, because the apostle Peter appears in the text and narrarates it, and because it was accompanied by the Apocalypse of Peter when it was found, archaeologists assumed it was the lost Gospel of Peter that the ancient churhc historian Eusebius and Bishop Serapion had warned was falsely attributed to the apostle."

"They didn't consider it to be reliable?" I asked.

"Oh heavens, no!" he replied, shaking his head. "It was considered full of errors and false teaching and therefor should not be read in the church."

"So we don't know for sure that this is a copy of that gospel?"

"we don't know that at all."

"What about you?" I asked. "You're apparently pretty skeptical."

"I'm extremely skeptical," he said, "because Bishop Serapion says the Gospel of Peter was 'docetic,' which means jesus only appered to be physical. In other words, he didn't leave footprints; his feet didn't quite touch the ground. Yet where's the docetism in the Akhmîm fragment?"

I pondered that qusetion. "Some people point to the part that says it was as if Jesus felt no pain during the crucifixion," i observed.

"THat's not docetism," Evans insisted. "that's lionizing Jesus by saying that even though he was brutally treated, he didn't lose self-control. He didn't cry out in pain. If the text is understood rightly, it implies he felt the pain but controlled himself."

"overall," I said, "what does the fragment talk about?"

"It starts with pilate giving up Jesus to the crowd to be crucified. Then there's this extraordinary crazy story about the ruling priest spending the night in a cemetery." Evans's eyes got wide. "This writer doesnt' know what he's talking about!" he declared. "No ruling priest would do that! Then the stone of jesus' tomb rolls aside and two angels, whose heads reach all the way to the clouds, go into the tomb and come out helping a third person, whose head goes above the clouds. I mean, we have an NBA dream theam here!" he added with a chuckle.

"Following them, comming out of the cave is a cross," he continued. "I mean, this is bizarre! You wonder -- how does it ambulate? Is it a pogo stick? Does it have wheels? Then a heavenly voice says 'Have you preached to them that sleep?' jesus doesn't answer -- the cross does! The cross says, 'Yes!' This is extraordinary! You read this and you say, 'I can't believe my eyes.' How can anyone suggest that this account of a talking cross and angels with their heads going to the clouds could really be an early, primitive account about Jesus?"

"But," i insisted, "Crossan does date it very early. He extracts what he calls the 'Cross Gospel' fro mit and says all four Gospel accounts are based on this. In his book, The Cross that Spoke, he dates his gospel to as early as AD 50."

Evans shook his head. "Crossan is just aboutall by himself on that point. Very, very few scholars would say the Akhmîm fragment could be as early as the New Testament Gospels, bit i'm not so sure even they would say it's got an early core on which the canonical Gospels depend. Crossan does, but not too many people think that's credible, since it's such a tour de force of special pleading.

"The problem is when the Akhmîm fragment is critically studied, it appearse to be loosely based on Matthew, and it contains errors that somebody ignorant of first-centuray political and cultural realities in Palestine would make -- like having ruling priests spend the night in the graveyard. They would not do that -- and anybody writing in the middle of the first century would know that. Obviously, he's ignorant of Jewish burial traditions and rules about corpse impurity. Also, the fragment is anti-Semitic, which would reflect lateness, not earliness. Because who would write a gospel in the 50s?"

"A jewish person," I ventured.

"That's right. So now we supposedly have an anti-semitic person writing a document on which the jewish authors -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- would base their accounts? This is absurd! Would they base their accoutns on a document that has manifest errors that would be obvious to them? The writer doesn't even know who rules what part of Israel at the time.

"And jesus' head goes into the clouds? This probably represents embellishment of the Shepherd of Hermes, written between AD 110 and 140, and an addition to Ezra in the mid-second centuray. What stuff of later legend. In the late second century, and on into the third, there were some fantastic ideas that cropped up about Jesus' cross, like going wherever he goes and preceding him into heaven.

"Any fair-minded historical reading of the Akhmîm fragment would say that, given the errors and the coherence with documented late tradition, that htis may very well not be the lost Gospel of Peter at all. If it isn't, we could date it in the third century, or even the furth or fifth centuries. It's a little more than a blend of details from the four canonical Gospels, especially from Matthew, embellished with pious imagination, apologetic concerns, and a touch of anti-Semitism.

"Moody Smith of Duke Divinity School put it this way: 'Is it thinkable that the tradition began with the legendary, the mythological, the anti-Jewish, and indeed the fantastic, and moved in the direction of historically restrained and sober?'"

Evans waited for the question to sink it. "Of course not," he concluded. "That's not how history works. It doesn't move from wild stories of talking about crosses and angels with their heads going to the clouds and then progress to the sober accounts of canonical Gospels."


May i point out that if these people are right, there are forgeries of Christian writings, irregardless of the date.

Quote:
I don't think that "the" bible exists, kohlrak. I resolutely disagree with your assessment that "its" presence constitutes evidence of supernatural intervention. All of these surviving documents and fragments of documents, written 1900 years ago, unearthed in recent decades, indicate, contrarily, evidence of conventional human activity. Where is the need to invoke supernatural explanations for their authorship?


If what was said in my quoting of a book above, tampering of your evidence may exist. Theoretically, the remaining books in the bible were written by people under the Jurisdiction of God, whether aware or not.

Quote:
Alternatively, if creative writing from only one century (during the past five millenia of written messages from one human to another,) is to direct all human activity, why not choose the 19th century? Existence of "THE" authentic bible indicates both a large quantity of gullibility, together with a substantial quantity of people with money they don't require, willing to spend it supporting some pedophiles.


I assume you're talking about the Catholic church, the same church that allowed people to pay their way into heaven. This happens to be one of the reasons for the reformation. As for not choosing the 19th century, to some degree, whether it be YHWH, Roman Gods, or some other gods, they would have been afraid to lie for fear of condemnation. Rather, today, atheists don't have to worry about condemnation, for, to them, there is not ultimate being(s) that would know every mistake that they make. Today, an author or scientist can easily argue with their biggest opponent to their works. Long ago, they knew their biggest opponent couldn't even be reasoned with, that that power would not change it's mind because of some pretty organization of words.

Merry Christmas to you also, Tom.
Post 25 Dec 2007, 16:51
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
I am glad we can move to on-topic debate, instead of discussing methodologies. Should i split posts about methodology (obtaining and judging evidence) to separate thread?

As for currently used bibles: I was probably wrong about this one, sorry. Currently used is pretty fixed subset of christian writings, altough there are still translation issues not agreed upon between christian sects.

Book you quoted nicely demonstrates that "gospel of Peter" was pretty off from current christian orthodoxy. We know it existed by end of 2nd century, and we know it was used among some christian sects. This pretty much proves what we told you.

I like that author of book approached that "gospel" from purely historical ground.
Quote:
Then there's this extraordinary crazy story about the ruling priest spending the night in a cemetery." Evans's eyes got wide. "This writer doesnt' know what he's talking about!" he declared. "No ruling priest would do that!

Let's do same thing for traditional gospels' claim that "jesus was tried by sanhedrim on passover (or day earlier, gospels don't agree on this)". No sanhedrim would ever condemn jesus in a way described in "orthodox" gospels, especially not on passover. Based on this (and others) impossibilities, shall we draw same conclusions as he drew from them on Gospel of Peter?

about of impossiblity of crucifying jesus on passover: file://localhost/c:/doc/site/www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#5
some sanhedrin rules: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t08/t0804.htm

Quote:
That's right. So now we supposedly have an anti-semitic person writing a document on which the jewish authors -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- would base their accounts? This is absurd! Would they base their accoutns on a document that has manifest errors that would be obvious to them? The writer doesn't even know who rules what part of Israel at the time.

Stupid argumentation. No "historical jesus" opponent says that authors of so-called "Gospel of Matthew", "Gospel of Luke", and "Gospel of John" were jewish. In fact, gospel of Matthew is often regarded as anti-jewish by secular historians.

Quote:
Any fair-minded historical reading of the Akhmîm fragment would say that, given the errors and the coherence with documented late tradition, that htis may very well not be the lost Gospel of Peter at all. If it isn't, we could date it in the third century, or even the furth or fifth centuries.

If we would want this late dating, then you would have to claim Eusebius, one of most famous 4th century apologist, to be liar. Eusebius was praising late 2nd century work of priest Serapion for condemning gospel of peter, so even though Eusebius confessed lying for god is good thing, i don't see purpose why he would lie about this. This shows gospel of peter was well known in area of Antioch (where Serapion preached) about 190. Why did authors "forget" to mention this when saying about late dating?

By the way, again author doesn't refute people who claim jesus most likely wasn't real historical figure. They agree Gospel of Peter can be later composition - much like Mathew and Luke, and especially very gnostic John (biblical archaelogist agree on this).

His argumentation is quiet about facts contradicting their claims, and misleading about opponents position. Shameful.

Quote:
May i point out that if these people are right, there are forgeries of Christian writings, irregardless of the date.

These people are right, because they comment on irrelevant subject (ones agreed by both opposing sides). In our context, so-called "gospel of peter" was just one example that there were many differing forgeries among early christians, and next to no evidence for orthodoxy. 4 gospels we have now were settled on much later, until then they were just "another gospels", agreed by some, not agreed by others. There were areas where "christianity" meant "gospel of peter", and not 4 gospels you know. Another proof that it was widely used is fact that it made it into 9th century burial, despite 5 centuries of orthodoxy.
Post 25 Dec 2007, 17:50
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:
As for currently used bibles: I was probably wrong about this one, sorry. Currently used is pretty fixed subset of christian writings, altough there are still translation issues not agreed upon between christian sects.


Many of which are minor, but some major. I do have my own opinions on how it should be translated and interpreted, but i don't speak hebrew so i usually keep those opinions strictly inside the home and never make it online.

Quote:
Book you quoted nicely demonstrates that "gospel of Peter" was pretty off from current christian orthodoxy. We know it existed by end of 2nd century, and we know it was used among some christian sects. This pretty much proves what we told you.


Now, we don't have the Gospel of Peter, therefor we really don't know what to say about it. For all we know, that could be an authentic "Gospel of Peter," but it could have been to make a mockery of Jesus, and therefor considered non-canon for good reason. Until we actually have the real one (assuming that this mockery isn't the real one), we really can't find out why it was rejected, or if it even existed. I don't know much about the topic of the Gospel of Peter, but until we either have the real one (which that may be, but it could have been written as a joke) or something, we really can't judge why it's not in the bible. It may have very well been just plain lost. It may even be another book with a mear renaming. Just like the Nintendo Revolution of today is now the Nintendo Wii, though a bit more serious.

Quote:
Let's do same thing for traditional gospels' claim that "jesus was tried by sanhedrim on passover (or day earlier, gospels don't agree on this)". No sanhedrim would ever condemn jesus in a way described in "orthodox" gospels, especially not on passover. Based on this (and others) impossibilities, shall we draw same conclusions as he drew from them on Gospel of Peter?


Nor would they have Jesus killed over a murderer instead of just letting him live as a madman. I believe the idea is that he was so feared by the Jewish High Preists, that they had to do something about him immediately before he stole power from them. This is human nature. People don't normally just relinquish power. I'm surprised they went through the proper channels, though, instead of comming in at night and murdering him.

Quote:
file://localhost/c:/doc/site/www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#5


Don't you mean http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#5 ?

Anyway... As for those rules, i find them a problem with the situation. Try to picture this. In fact, these guys are higher than the supreme court in their minds. They believe they're the high preists of israel. They believe they answer only to Rome and God. We're talking about people who are more pompus than the president of the US or the delegates in the united nations. Now, some little child grows up under your watch and is stealing your power away. You interpet this guy to be claiming that he's God himself. You even believe that he's trying to change the laws of which you govern yourself. This little punk that was born in what cattle eat out of. You'd want the full humiliation of the Romans handling it, and you want it done as soon as possible. You'd get alot of glee and joy of finally being rid of him, so you would slap him and spit on him, for you notice that almost everyone around is enjoying watching you do it, for they follow you, and this heretic is mocking you. You answer to no one but Rome and God, so why not do it? It's free cheap shots at the one causing you, the great upper class, problems. Whatever they could have done to mock Jesus, they would have done. This guy was causing them great problems, and they were afraid of him getting power, even after death. The best thing to do (and this would have been my choice of actions in their situation) would be to mock him, embarass him, and make him look as crappy as i possibly could, even at the stake of breaking rules, because i could easily be forgiven tomarrow at passover, since i already have high status with God since i'm a high preist.

Quote:
Stupid argumentation. No "historical jesus" opponent says that authors of so-called "Gospel of Matthew", "Gospel of Luke", and "Gospel of John" were jewish. In fact, gospel of Matthew is often regarded as anti-jewish by secular historians.


Elaborate, especially on the anti-semiticness of matthew part.

Quote:
If we would want this late dating, then you would have to claim Eusebius, one of most famous 4th century apologist, to be liar. Eusebius was praising late 2nd century work of priest Serapion for condemning gospel of peter, so even though Eusebius confessed lying for god is good thing, i don't see purpose why he would lie about this. This shows gospel of peter was well known in area of Antioch (where Serapion preached) about 190. Why did authors "forget" to mention this when saying about late dating?


Maybe un-aware. If this is the case, than this would be the lost Gospel of Peter, and it would explain why it was rejected. I would imagin their reasoning would have been the same reasoning of the early church, don't you think? Would you not find that reasonable to consider it a forgery? Then again, this could also have been a forgery of the gospel of peter.

Quote:
By the way, again author doesn't refute people who claim jesus most likely wasn't real historical figure. They agree Gospel of Peter can be later composition - much like Mathew and Luke, and especially very gnostic John (biblical archaelogist agree on this)


This book seems to go in a chronological order of a debate sort. I mentioned the Gospel of Peter to my dad and i quoted that section. it probably does a little more later. The author even seemed a little clueless to me, maybe even secular. I havn't read the whole book, just that section. For all i know, it could be a book on what convinced the author to become a christian. We really can't get much on this author's stance from 2 and 1/2 pages of text from a whole book.

Quote:
His argumentation is quiet about facts contradicting their claims, and misleading about opponents position. Shameful.


The book may very well be previous of your "facts." This isn't exactly something that just came off the new releases section of the book store. Though, i'm sure that if it were more recent, perhaps things would have been more covered to your liking. Though, i would like for you to elaborate on this fact contradiction, though the opponent seems to be a christian to me, but i'm not 100% sure on that. I liked what i saw, made sence, so i quoted. Don't know about anything else in the book, to be quite honest, as i stated right before i quoted it.

Quote:
These people are right, because they comment on irrelevant subject (ones agreed by both opposing sides). In our context, so-called "gospel of peter" was just one example that there were many differing forgeries among early christians, and next to no evidence for orthodoxy. 4 gospels we have now were settled on much later, until then they were just "another gospels", agreed by some, not agreed by others. There were areas where "christianity" meant "gospel of peter", and not 4 gospels you know.


Well, until we know that this is the original "gospel of peter," we really can't debate on this more. There may have been a reason why this was still read in other churches. This is a time before telephones where they could debate on phones or computers and such like we do now. Some churches may not have known this text or that text, and only 1 particular text. Hard to be united at that time. On top of that, there were forgeries to sort through. It would logically take some time for all the churches to syncronize and identify everything. Where can we really go from here?

Quote:
Another proof that it was widely used is fact that it made it into 9th century burial, despite 5 centuries of orthodoxy.


Could have even been written later. I hate to say this, but carbon dating would be needed to continue this one. To be honest, i don't exactly trust their dating. Assuming that it would be the real one, it couldn't be, unless it was a forgery from that time by a completely clueless non-christian trying to either corrupt the bible or mock it.
Post 26 Dec 2007, 05:55
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:
Many of which are minor, but some major. I do have my own opinions on how it should be translated and interpreted, but i don't speak hebrew so i usually keep those opinions strictly inside the home and never make it online.

that good, because since you don't know hebew / latin / aramaic, your opinions are unfounded. By the way, for many questionable phrases, you can find lengthy discussion on internet enumerating all possibilities what it could mean.

Quote:
Now, we don't have the Gospel of Peter, therefor we really don't know what to say about it. For all we know, that could be an authentic "Gospel of Peter," but it could have been to make a mockery of Jesus, and therefor considered non-canon for good reason. Until we actually have the real one (assuming that this mockery isn't the real one), we really can't find out why it was rejected, or if it even existed. I don't know much about the topic of the Gospel of Peter, but until we either have the real one (which that may be, but it could have been written as a joke) or something, we really can't judge why it's not in the bible. It may have very well been just plain lost. It may even be another book with a mear renaming. Just like the Nintendo Revolution of today is now the Nintendo Wii, though a bit more serious.

once again, you are argumenting "we can't possibly know" about things we already know. Next time please check before writing that claim. Reasons for rejecting Gospel of Peter are already explained by later church fathers (Origen and Eusebius). They also tell us Gospel of Peter was regarded as authentic gospel among some, and rejected as not authentic by others.

Quote:
Nor would they have Jesus killed over a murderer instead of just letting him live as a madman. I believe the idea is that he was so feared by the Jewish High Preists, that they had to do something about him immediately before he stole power from them. This is human nature. People don't normally just relinquish power. I'm surprised they went through the proper channels, though, instead of comming in at night and murdering him.

That is one interpretation, for sure not impossible. Now it's up to you to study all other evidence, study gospels, compare to recorded history, and judge probability of this explaination compared to probabilities of others explainations.


hell, yes

Quote:
Whatever they could have done to mock Jesus, they would have done.

Not really whatever. They wouldn't break their holy laws concerning sanhedrim, as you suggest.

Quote:
This guy was causing them great problems, and they were afraid of him getting power, even after death.

Now back to reconciling your interpretation with history. No "great problems" caused by jesus are recorded by historians, even though smaller problems in same time and area are recorded. This doesn't mean existence of jesus is impossible, but it makes your interpretation of evidence a little bit less likely to be truth.

Quote:
Quote:
Why did authors "forget" to mention this when saying about late dating?

Maybe un-aware.

unaware? There are three extant explicit references to (this) gospel of peter. How could they write about gospel of peter without knowing very basics about it? If they were unaware of these references, then it would be almost as shameful for them, as ignoring evidence on purpose.

Quote:
If this is the case, than this would be the lost Gospel of Peter, and it would explain why it was rejected. I would imagin their reasoning would have been the same reasoning of the early church, don't you think? Would you not find that reasonable to consider it a forgery? Then again, this could also have been a forgery of the gospel of peter.

please, realize, i agree with anyone that gospel of peter is forgery. But it is forgery that was most likely widely used, and this forgery was christianity for many people for long time. And it is just one of so many forgeries. Evidence suggest that until later, this forgery (along with many other forgeries) held exactly same status as traditional 4 gospels.

Quote:
Could have even been written later. I hate to say this, but carbon dating would be needed to continue this one. To be honest, i don't exactly trust their dating. Assuming that it would be the real one, it couldn't be, unless it was a forgery from that time by a completely clueless non-christian trying to either corrupt the bible or mock it.

We only have manuscript from 8th or 9th century. We won't get anything older by that by carbon dating, and there is extremely little chance to find such old manuscript (oldest new testament manuscript comes from around year 150). This is dated historically. We know about this gospel from 4th century writing of Eusebius, who praises Serapion (around 190 CE) for condemning this gospel. This dating is pretty solid, there is no reason for Eusebius to lie about this, and we would hardly get anything better.

Quote:
There may have been a reason why this was still read in other churches. This is a time before telephones where they could debate on phones or computers and such like we do now. Some churches may not have known this text or that text, and only 1 particular text. Hard to be united at that time. On top of that, there were forgeries to sort through. It would logically take some time for all the churches to syncronize and identify everything. Where can we really go from here?

First, I'm glad we succesfully arrived here. It is very important to realize that early christianity was very unorthodox set of churches each with it's own beliefs (like complete disagreement over nature/historicity of jesus).

Next step would be studying "false" material, and comparing it to "true" one, and study method how their "synchronization" and "identification of true material" worked.

I hope that as someone who believes christianity, there is no reason for you NOT to do it. Surely it is good to learn as much as possible about your religion, and get a solid ground to refute arguments like ours Wink
Post 26 Dec 2007, 11:13
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:
that good, because since you don't know hebew / latin / aramaic, your opinions are unfounded. By the way, for many questionable phrases, you can find lengthy discussion on internet enumerating all possibilities what it could mean.


I'm sure. I'm sure i could even find some impossible ones online as well, along with "scientific reviews" to point which is more "realistic." You can find anything online... You might even be able to find a "scientific slinky."

Quote:
once again, you are argumenting "we can't possibly know" about things we already know. Next time please check before writing that claim.


If you're not 100% sure, then you don't know.

Quote:
Reasons for rejecting Gospel of Peter are already explained by later church fathers (Origen and Eusebius). They also tell us Gospel of Peter was regarded as authentic gospel among some, and rejected as not authentic by others.


Well some decent explination on whether or not their judgement was fair can't be decided without the original one.

Quote:
That is one interpretation, for sure not impossible. Now it's up to you to study all other evidence, study gospels, compare to recorded history, and judge probability of this explaination compared to probabilities of others explainations.


Spoiled, pompous people i know very well. When some one takes away their glory, they must have it back. It's like setting a bag of crack on a table and leaving a crack adict alone in the room, but telling him/her not to use it. They're going through withdrawl. They know that no one will stop them. They would have to be paranoid of the punishment for the rules not to go for it.

Quote:
Not really whatever. They wouldn't break their holy laws concerning sanhedrim, as you suggest.


They're jelous and afraid of loosing power. Who wouldn't?

Quote:
Now back to reconciling your interpretation with history. No "great problems" caused by jesus are recorded by historians, even though smaller problems in same time and area are recorded. This doesn't mean existence of jesus is impossible, but it makes your interpretation of evidence a little bit less likely to be truth.


Not great problems as in floods or natural disasters of the death of many. Great problems as in they notice he's stealing their followers away from them. Or, at least, that would have been their interpretation when some followed Jesus and not them.

Quote:
unaware? There are three extant explicit references to (this) gospel of peter. How could they write about gospel of peter without knowing very basics about it? If they were unaware of these references, then it would be almost as shameful for them, as ignoring evidence on purpose.


But WERE there tree extant explicit referances to it when the book was written? Were those referances updated since the book was written? Etc etc.

Quote:
please, realize, i agree with anyone that gospel of peter is forgery. But it is forgery that was most likely widely used, and this forgery was christianity for many people for long time. And it is just one of so many forgeries. Evidence suggest that until later, this forgery (along with many other forgeries) held exactly same status as traditional 4 gospels.


Well, without those forgeries, we really can't be sure why those were immediately accepted and later thrown out. Also, the question still is, "how much later?" Lots of forgeries to go through, but i still don't say it went up to the 1500s.

Quote:
We only have manuscript from 8th or 9th century. We won't get anything older by that by carbon dating, and there is extremely little chance to find such old manuscript (oldest new testament manuscript comes from around year 150). This is dated historically. We know about this gospel from 4th century writing of Eusebius, who praises Serapion (around 190 CE) for condemning this gospel. This dating is pretty solid, there is no reason for Eusebius to lie about this, and we would hardly get anything better.


I ment that forgery. That could be a forgery of a forgery.

Quote:
First, I'm glad we succesfully arrived here. It is very important to realize that early christianity was very unorthodox set of churches each with it's own beliefs (like complete disagreement over nature/historicity of jesus).


Not a difficult concept. It is how it is now. A group of churches, with a completely different view of Jesus.

Quote:
Next step would be studying "false" material, and comparing it to "true" one, and study method how their "synchronization" and "identification of true material" worked.


Not quite... First would be finding and authenticating the "lost works." There are surely forgeries of the forgeries out there as well. Everyone wants a piece of the pie today.

Quote:
I hope that as someone who believes christianity, there is no reason for you NOT to do it. Surely it is good to learn as much as possible about your religion, and get a solid ground to refute arguments like ours


Technically, i am not supposed to even argue with you, but aside from that point...
Post 26 Dec 2007, 15:11
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:
If you're not 100% sure, then you don't know.

Then you don't know anything. That's why this argumentation is retarted. If you want to learn at least something, you must use method that allows you to learn something. For most people "know" means "beyond reasonable doubt". Redefining words isn't exactly best way for discussing and/or learning.

Quote:
But WERE there tree extant explicit referances to it when the book was written? Were those referances updated since the book was written? Etc etc.

oh my, how could anyone reference the book just after it was written? That someone would "update" these references is way less probable than someone updating bible.

Please, instead of pointing all minor not-100%-sure things, study something about it. You simply keep challenging everything i say, often with nonsense, without knowing anything about it. Instead, try to bring any positive proof into these debate.

Or, try to apply same hard challenging to your belief, do not bias your challenging to only one side, bias won't get you closer to truth. Challenge every aspect of your faith, if it is truth, it will easily withstand ANY challenge. If someone tells you not to challenge faith, it only means he isn't sure about it being truth.

Quote:
Not quite... First would be finding and authenticating the "lost works." There are surely forgeries of the forgeries out there as well. Everyone wants a piece of the pie today.

We won't ever find much more manuscripts than we have now (and even then you can forever challenge them, because they are only 99.9999% real). Grab some translation, and start reading. Challenge it to death if you wish, it will prompt you to learn how scientifical methods of veracity verification.

Quote:
Technically, i am not supposed to even argue with you, but aside from that point...

According to faith, right. I believe you realize that if your opinion is truth, all evidence should support it, and there should be no problem refuting all our false claims, after you learn the evidence.
Post 26 Dec 2007, 16:19
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:
Then you don't know anything. That's why this argumentation is retarted. If you want to learn at least something, you must use method that allows you to learn something. For most people "know" means "beyond reasonable doubt". Redefining words isn't exactly best way for discussing and/or learning.


Beyond reasonable doubt means that there is no reasonable doubt. For a situation as important as this, less than perfection is reasonable.

Quote:
oh my, how could anyone reference the book just after it was written? That someone would "update" these references is way less probable than someone updating bible.


I mean your contradicting referances.

Quote:
Please, instead of pointing all minor not-100%-sure things, study something about it. You simply keep challenging everything i say, often with nonsense, without knowing anything about it. Instead, try to bring any positive proof into these debate.


You havn't come up with prositive proof yet. I thought we all agreed that positive proof (non questionable/100% accuret) is impossible.

Quote:
Or, try to apply same hard challenging to your belief, do not bias your challenging to only one side, bias won't get you closer to truth. Challenge every aspect of your faith, if it is truth, it will easily withstand ANY challenge. If someone tells you not to challenge faith, it only means he isn't sure about it being truth.


My point is to not make claims that you can't absolutely prove. You still havn't proven Tom's claims. You've only provided evidence, evidence which i don't fully trust, therefor i consider the claim as ignorant slander.

Quote:
We won't ever find much more manuscripts than we have now (and even then you can forever challenge them, because they are only 99.9999% real). Grab some translation, and start reading. Challenge it to death if you wish, it will prompt you to learn how scientifical methods of veracity verification.


Studying possible forgeries will teach me how these were "scientifically verfied?" That's like saying information of microwaving popcorn can be found in the Quran... Now, electronic Qurans aside, i find this unlikely.

Quote:
According to faith, right. I believe you realize that if your opinion is truth, all evidence should support it, and there should be no problem refuting all our false claims, after you learn the evidence.


What an ignorant assumption. Actually, i'm not supposed to because it would cause hostility. The idea is that you'll never change anyway, so any arguing with you will just anger me, that instead of arguing i should just let you mock your ass off and if people follow you, so be it. Jesus was the kind of person who would say, "If some one steals your coat, give them your shirt as well. If they slap your cheek, offer the other side." The objective of Christians is to be as much like Jesus as possible. He was supposedly more than just our sacrificial lamb, but he was also to be a living example of how we should live.
Post 26 Dec 2007, 16:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 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.