Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by epeeist


951. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #148201 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 10:22 am

Comment #148194 by Steve Zara

Actually Steve you missed the easy one - the results were not statistically significant. Which is what it says in the paper.

952. Fleabytes

Comment #148145 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 7:25 am

Comment #148142 by BillySands


I probably know the answer, but did David ever understand the set of gods business let alone reply to it?
You do know the answer.

953. Fleabytes

Comment #148144 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 7:23 am

Comment #148136 by Mark Smith


Why not do as many more liberal Christians do and say it is not making a historical assertion in this respect and 'merely' is saying something metaphorical about what it is to be human?
Cos it doesn't sound quite so convincing Jesus being crucified for a metaphor - you need Ningizzida the talking snake Lord of the Tree of Life (sorry about that, wrong mythology), the wrath of god and all that.

954. Fleabytes

Comment #148118 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #148114 by BillySands


It is your presuppositions and what you are prepared to accept as evidence that makes you think the Illiad is fiction. You just have to accept that it is true first.
But that is the problem isn't it. We accept that we cannot prove that god does not exist (or to put it a different way, that the class of personal gods is empty).

The theists who come here and presumptuously call their god "God" have a major problem. Not only do they have to show that the class of personal gods is not empty, but that it only contains a single member and that single member happens to be their particular deity.

We accept that you can't prove Yahweh does not exist. But we also accept that you can't prove Zeus or Atum do not exist either.

The theists want it both ways, the way you to accept that their deity does not exist without any evidence and that other deities do not, again without evidence.

955. Fleabytes

Comment #148111 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 5:40 am

Comment #148107 by Artful_Dodger


Re "metaphorical" v "Literal" and the difference between the two, one knows by being familiar with the genre, and by not mistaking one genre for another.
That's it? That's your "higher criticism"? I know because I know?

Quick comparison - Illiad, known to be mythological fiction with some historical elements. Looks a lot like the bible. I therefore declare the bible to be mythological fiction with some historical elements.

Since you haven't said who has the authority to declare such a pronouncement I hereby declare myself capable.

956. Fleabytes

Comment #148081 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 1:45 am

Comment #147853 by Artful_Dodger


Suffice it to say that a great deal of Old Testament Scripture is couched in poetic language. Metaphor abounds in Biblical poetry just as it abounds in every other kind of poetry. The opening chapters of Genesis can be read as epic poetry. They portray the creation of the universe and of mankind within it almost like a symphony. and so on
As Geoff says "Artfully dodged".

You weren't asked which bits were metaphor and which bits were literal. You were asked how one distinguished between the literal and metaphorical. This you have obviously failed to answer.

You were also asked how one acquires the authority to label parts of a document which is directly or indirectly the word of god "literal" or "metaphorical". You haven't done this either.

957. Fleabytes

Comment #147851 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Comment #147847 by SRWB


I was just thinking the same thing now that Dodgy Art is back............
Me too, after all he promised a response here - http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page40#135733

One of the things the post-and-run brigade seem to think is that we suffer from some kind of absence related memory loss. Personally I am waiting for devolved to return, I have some questions about a flood for him. This assumes I get in first, I know Billy Sands wants to ask him something about opsin genes.

958. Fleabytes

Comment #147806 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 9:53 am

Comment #147793 by MPhil


ever heard of Jabberwacky? It can be huge fun for a while.
Definitely saner than wooter...

Could we get Josh just to connect jabberwacky and wooter end to end? They could keep each other happy for years.

959. EXPELLED!

Comment #147751 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 7:35 am

Comment #147736 by aflacgirl84
Can someone tell me how to do the quotes?

Use < blockquote >Text< /blockquote >

But take out the spaces before and after the angle brackets.

960. Fleabytes

Comment #147742 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 7:14 am

Comment #147732 by mlearnedfriend


I do find it interesting that no one doubts the content of the Iliad (written at the end of a long period of oral transmission in song - got that from Melvyn Bragg) yet have extreme doubts over much more reliable ancient documents (EG the Bible). You need to stop treating it like a moral document - that says things you don't agree with -and treat it more as an historical text.
The Illiad is fiction. Nobody claims that Zeus and Hera actually exist or that the pantheon of gods were really supporting opposite sides during the conflict. Nobody claims that the virtues and vices described in the book should form the basis for the morals of current day society or that the priests of Apollo should be invited on to the radio to discuss the embryology bill.

There are obviously some historical elements to the Trojan war, as Schliemann's discovery of Troy demonstrates. However the majority of it is myth.

961. Fleabytes

Comment #147737 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #147731 by Murky


U missed a bit of the quote clod.:)

X is an unknown quantity, spirt is a drip under pressure.
I have heard it as "Ex" - meaning "has been" and "spurt", meaning "drip under pressure".

962. Fleabytes

Comment #147720 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #147710 by sentient

David, forgive me if you have already answered this question (I haven't read all 6,500 posts) but I would be interested to know if you believe the soul enters the embryo at the moment of fertilisation? If not, when does this occur?
An interesting question, given the percentage of embryos that spontaneously abort - http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-4728(197007)24:2<241:TIOSA>2.0.CO;2-P

One has to ask when most women recognise that they are pregnant, after one missed period, two, three?

963. Fleabytes

Comment #147715 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 6:39 am

Comment #147708 by PlagioClase


A bit like Antony Flew whose father was a Methodist minister. Flew became an atheist in his late teens, but said in his 80s that he now believes in a God. His book (There is no a God) is very useful reading. It was the new discoveries in science, especially biology and astronomy that had the biggest impact on Flew.
Just as a matter of interest PlagioClase seems to be moving here after being pwned on another thread...

964. Fleabytes

Comment #147694 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 6:13 am

Pathfinder - you seem to be quite happy to claim a miracle for something which may have a natural explanation. Are you ever going to respond to my questions in
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page127#147200

965. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147686 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 6:05 am

Comment #147684 by PlagioClase


The assertion 'There is no god' is a theological statement.
However the hypothesis "The class of personal gods is empty" is of course contingently valid, testable and falsifiable.

Just waiting for you to show that there is a consequence of the hypothesis that has been falsified.

And has has been pointed out before - if one cannot prove that Yahweh does not exist, then one similarly cannot prove that Zeus, Odin or Atum do not exist.

966. Two More Fleas

Comment #147656 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 4:42 am

Here is a simple question for you wooter - what are you doing putting messages on this site on Good Friday?

Shouldn't you be spending all your time in church praying to your Jewish cosmic zombie?

967. Fleabytes

Comment #147650 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 4:20 am

Comment #147648 by Steve Zara

Nothing is ever simple in biology.
Bingo!

Yes creationism/ID (they are synonymous) wants religion to be sneaked in under the covers. But the majority of people who discount evolution, climate change, cosmology or particle physics do so because they are looking for simplicity and certainty.

968. Two More Fleas

Comment #147621 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 2:07 am

Wooter - the stuff you post is cretinous nonsense. It has been politely rebuffed so many times but you still don't seem to realise it.

You deserve all the expletives that are now being thrown at you. In fact you deserve far more. If you think you are being treated badly can I suggest your verbal diaheria of to http://rantsnraves.org/ or http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/index.php and see how you get treated.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but as has been pointed in many other places you are not entitled to your own facts. And the fact is that evolution happens. It has been seen in the lab and in nature. Screaming nonsense about the Mona Lisa or watches doesn't alter the facts.

The other thing about opinions is that they are cheap. However if you want to learn about a subject it is going to cost you. The people who have responded to you here have research degrees in the subject they discuss, this requires 6 years or more in university. They speak with some authority because of this.

You demonstrate less cognitive ability that some of the 8 year olds my wife teaches science to in the primary department of her school. You might claim a BA and MA but it looks as thought these were bought from the same kind of organisation that Ian Bamlett got his ordination from.

The only reason people now respond to you here is because you are a joke. Not an intellectual joke, a pitiful scatological joke. That, and the fact that it shows the pathetic masturbatory infantalism that is creationism. You are doing our job for us here wooter - you have shown how irrational, bigoted and ignorant and hateful extreme religiosity is.

Take it elsewhere, there's a good chap. You have ceased to be funny or entertaining. You are simply an embarrassment to yourself.

969. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #147409 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 10:04 am

Comment #147406 by Duffguy


I think to give them the same open minded attitude that we expect from them (ie. asking them to question their beliefs, and look into the works of some of the "four horsemen"), then we should by all means read the book.
I started it, couldn't get through more than a few pages at a time. Tried the chapter on science and wasn't sure whether to laugh or weep.

I had steeled myself to actually get down and read it but before I actually did Steve Zara read it and put a review on his blog. Vox Day posted a response but when Steve suggested that they discuss one particular point, rather than all of the arguments that Day had raised it seemed to go quiet.

970. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147394 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 9:12 am

Comment #147380 by al-rawandi


You are simply determined to get rid of the field known as "Theology". Even though this can be a secular, atheistic pursuit. This has more to do with emotion than it does with the field.

More complex than that.

I have two major difficulties with theology. The first is the discussion of topics within its domain as though its grounding is objectively true. The second difficulty is the concomitant assumption that its findings can be used in determining how societies should be organised, what should and should not be taught, what is and what is not moral etc.

So let's say the I want to study the Baha'i concept of God and Progressive Revelation. What field should I study? Why can't I go somewhere and study this notion of god? Somewhere where others gather to study the notion of god and its influence on society.
So where would you put the study the differences between ancient Egyptian religion and Kermetic wicca? Mythology, sociology, anthropology?

I am quite happy to have departments of theology, just lets get rid of the idea that they are discussing ineffable truths and get them more tightly bound to history and anthropology.

971. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147371 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 8:28 am

Comment #147360 by al-rawandi

I can discuss the properties of an imaginary god. The belief in whom spurs people to action. Do you refrain from talking about the properties of Romeo and Juliet? Do you refrain from talking about the characters of a Tom Clancy novel? No. These are forms of literary criticism.
Yes, one can certainly discuss "Romeo and Juliet", it is fiction and one can criticise it as a literary work.

In the same way one can apply the higher criticism to religious texts to establish origins and authors, however I would contend this is more history than theology. One can also look at beliefs, but I would contend this is social anthropology.

Your 5 step program is only relevant when dealing with instantiation of an interventionist god. It is useless and rather absurd when discussing the potential effects of the idea and/or belief in a deity.

The points are valid if the OP is claiming that his particular beliefs should form the basis of the mores of society. Unless he is able to demonstrate the truth of each of these 5 points he is unable to make a sound argument.

972. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147353 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 7:54 am

Comment #147338 by PlagioClase


Who cares? And why do you worry? According to Richard we live in a universe with nothing but 'blind, pitiless indifference'.
However, that doesn't mean we have to be.

So, according to that definition, atheists are theologians too and this is a theological site. I can't imagine that atheists would claim their utterances about God are not 'rational'.
But we don't discuss the properties of gods in the same way we don't discuss the eating habits of invisible garage dragons. We might discuss mechanisms for detecting invisible, non-substantial garage dragons, but sadly none of these has ever been successful. A bit similar to the detection of gods really.

Before you start discussing the properties of your particular god you have to establish:
  1. That the universe was created
  2. That it was created by a omni-maximal entity
  3. That this entity didn't just create the universe and then decide to go and do other things, it actually stayed around interfering with what it had created
  4. That the entity was actually the deity of a particular iron age tribe that lived on a small section of a planet which rotates round one particular sun in 1011 suns in a particular galaxy in something like 150 billion others
  5. That the doings of this deity were documented in the holy book of that tribe some 2000 years ago and that the contents of that book are still valid
Once you have established all that then come back and we can discuss how your supernatural god interferes in the natural world without being detected, cures some people and not others, drowns 99.99999% of the earth's human population but is still omni-benevolent.

973. Two More Fleas

Comment #147327 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 6:56 am

Comment #147316 by al-rawandi


I don't know what country wooter is from. But he wouldn't make it out of an American High School, and certainly never into a university. Breathing for him, must be a daily challenge, requiring his full attention.
My wife teaches here - http://www.withington.manchester.sch.uk/

He would fail the entrance exam that they give to the seven year old girls.

974. Two More Fleas

Comment #147312 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 6:23 am

Comment #147215 by clearmind



Next is epeeist
My book worm chap! All of this is in elementary biology text books. Stop sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la".

I hope you did not do that la la la thing or you assumed that someone did it,
So tell us as book worm in a very elementary way how evolution â€" luck and chances fixed the sun in perfect way if God did not create it.
You know wooter I am not sure about you.

Either you are a wind up or the most stupid person I have ever come across. Half-wits would be embarrassed to be seen with you. You would fail the entry exams for the post of village idiot, in fact I believe the village of Marblehead in Boston has already refused your application for the post because you were unable to even drool. You were the obvious role model for the film "Dumb and Dumber", though they had to increase the intelligence level of the characters by 500% in order to make it credible.

975. Fleabytes

Comment #147265 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 5:02 am

Comment #147185 by irate_atheist


Fantastic, superb, top notch. But why no socks?
Blatantly obvious - http://www.mycathatesyou.com/cats/2007/07/4

976. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #147208 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 3:18 am

As a total aside - why is it that Americans seem to fear their government? Distrust I understand, loathing seems to be entirely rational. But why the fear that the government is going to come and take your children away, stop you practicing your beliefs etc?

977. Fleabytes

Comment #147200 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 3:07 am

Comment #147196 by Pathfinder


Lourdes. Need I say more?
Yes, could you give us some statistics on the number of people actually cured of by going to Lourdes and praying there.

Could you also explain why the bus carrying pilgrims from Lourdes were killed in a crash - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/catholic-pilgrims-killed-in-bus-crash-458382.html

Hadn't they pleased god enough?

Could you also explain why when my Catholic grandfather had an accident he had to have his leg amputated despite the numerous prayers and candles of my devout grandmother and aunt? Could you also explain why god decided that he couldn't grow it back, again despite the abundant prayers offered? And why he developed septicaemia which killed him? Was it because he and his family were Catholics?

In which case can you explain why my college friend also had to have his leg amputated after a motorcycle accident, though his Methodist parents prayed for him. And why hasn't god chosen to grow it back?

In fact - can you point us to any documented cases of amputees having their prayers answered and their limbs grow back?

978. Fleabytes

Comment #147195 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 2:57 am

Comment #147193 by clodhopper

Timothy 2:9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes or socks

So darling.....about that monsoon dress...
Nice try, but it doesn't work. Join the church, avoid paying for expensive clothes for your significant other - and pay 10% in tithes instead.

979. Fleabytes

Comment #147171 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 1:31 am

Comment #147150 by clodhopper


What is it with that sock on the stairs? Just the one, all on its own. It lies there for days taunting you. Where the fuck is the other one? How did it get there? Why will nobody move it? Grrr!
And why is it that the only socks that survive in pairs are the Paisley ones given to you by great Aunt Mildred for Christmas 11 years ago?

While the lined ones you bought for walking or the silk ones you bought last week immediately become odd socks?

980. Two More Fleas

Comment #147167 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 1:27 am

Comment #147163 by alan baylis


If you are as religious as you seem to be, you should realize that you are probably damaging your own cause by posting your stuff on here, or anywhere else for that matter!
The trouble is Alan that technology has been responsible for the communication between man and god becoming weaker. As a result the forces of religion are becoming overwhelmed by the evils of science and secularism.

This article explains why prayer is no longer so effective - http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/report_32_of_prayers

981. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147153 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 12:54 am

Comment #147149 by PlagioClase


Great article here:
UK Study Finds People Who Believe in God are Happier than Agnostics or Atheists.
Moreover, people become even happier the more they pray and go to church.
You might care to look at http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

Oh - and even if religion makes people feel happy it doesn't make it true. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

982. Fleabytes

Comment #146836 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Comment #146807 by SRWB

those who wrote these stories probably had an agenda (political, faith-driven, power seeking, etc) to pursue, humans being humans, so might have succumbed to a little bit of propagandizing and deliberate embellishment to further such agendas (everyone is familiar with fish stories, wherein the caught fish grows larger and longer with each retelling of the tale).
You must be in collusion with my elder daughter.

Just going out to do some coaching, I have on the t-shirt she bought me which has the slogan "The older I get, the better I was" in large friendly letters on the front.

983. Report: 32% Of Prayers Deflected Off Passing Satellites

Comment #146833 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Could anyone who has access to theist sites of a fundamentalist nature please post this article there.

I see this as a valuable sociological experiment.

Just waiting for wooter to start posting tomorrow...

984. Fleabytes

Comment #146700 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 9:35 am

Comment #146667 by MaxD


I think this is something we might definately want to think about when discussing the verasimilitude of the bible. Oral traditions are pretty inadequate in many ways. Look at the UFO phenemenon or Elvis. People can't agree on certain details, people see him, or did regularly 20 years or more after his (alleged) death.


Anecdote alert:

Many years ago I was waiting at a bus stop in Leeds. It was winter and early evening. An elderly man standing next to me suddenly keeled over. This was in the days before mobile phones so I went to find a public telephone and somebody else wrapped him in an overcoat and stayed with him.

By the time I got back the ambulance and police had arrived (the police station and hospital being literally under a minutes drive away). A number of people were giving the police details of what had happened, including a description of how he had been hit by the wing mirror of a van driving past and another saying that he had been attacked by another man who had then run off (namely me).

Interestingly a number of people who tried to give statements had not actually been present when the man had keeled over.

Now if you can't rely on statements that were taken within an hour of an event then what hope decades after an event?

985. Two More Fleas

Comment #146684 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 9:20 am

Comment #146669 by irate_atheist

You cretinous, uneducable, semi-literate, gibbering, pathetic excuse for an example of humanity.

Not impressive I am afraid - you were supposed to be vilifying him, not giving an accurate description.

986. Fleabytes

Comment #146606 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 8:10 am

Comment #146591 by Dr Benway


Oh I'm not worried about being compared to a mass murderer. Seriously, I'm not offended.
I actually live in the town where he practiced (if that is the right term).
Gotta go. The baby I'm cooking in the oven is almost done.
Wrong age, should be a pensioner. I presume they are too tough and string though.

987. Fleabytes

Comment #146569 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 7:45 am

Comment #146561 by Steve Zara

To give an analogy, the fact that we know where mount Olympus is does not give support to belief in Zeus.
Yes it does. What it does not do is to provide evidence for the existence or godhood of Zeus.

There is a fair amount of data that would support the existence of an "Artuir", a Dux Bellorum towards the end of the Roman period in Britain. It doesn't make him a king, a killer of dragons or someone who went to the Isle of Avalon after a battle to wait for his resurrection.

988. Fleabytes

Comment #146549 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 7:27 am

Comment #146539 by mlearnedfriend


Putting together of the canon - well Da Vinci code readers will all think this happened at Nicea (in reality Hippo 393 and Carthage 397) but in practical terms the canon was pretty secure way before that due to the self-selecting nature of the material due to various rules of 'canonicity' that weeded out that which was wackier, historically inaccurate, a departure from the existing canon, not written by accepted authorities and that accepted by the church when it appeared.
How did they make the decisions as to whether something was "historically inaccurate"? How did they decide what was authoritative and what were the criteria?

989. Jesus saves

Comment #146520 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 6:57 am

Comment #146513 by Alkal


.... and I thought it was a promo for MS word.. "Jesus Saves, so his work is always current"


You could also try "Jesus saves, Ferdinand scores on the rebound".

Or "Jesus saves at Northern Rock" (trying to make it topical).

990. Two More Fleas

Comment #146514 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 6:48 am

Wooter - Steve Zara is a biologist, I am a physicist and MPhil is a philosopher. Calilasseia is also a scientist. We obviously (to you at least) cannot comment on matters of god and religion.

Shayne Dark though really is a reverend, if you insisted I am sure he could provide you with a picture of his degree in theology.

Since he is a man of god you really ought to take note of what he is saying.

991. Two More Fleas

Comment #146505 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #146495 by al-rawandi


I suggested that he was in fact the Loch Ness monster.
Back in the days of wooter I suggested that it wasn't a "he" or "she", simply a very bad implementation of Eliza - http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza-cgi-bin/eliza_script or alternatively Zippy the pinhead - http://home.xnet.com/~warinner/zippy.cgi

992. Two More Fleas

Comment #146487 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 6:17 am

Comment #146480 by Calilasseia

Wooter is a teacher?

So he asserts.


If he's in the USA, isn't this a direct violation of the Establishment Clause?
Given the time of his postings there has been speculation that he is based in the far east or Asia. However he has refused to confirm this.

He has also stated that English is not his first language. Some leeway was given to him on his first arrival at the site because of this. He again refuses to say what his first language is, the speculation here was something like Tagalog.


I feel sorry for his pupils if they have to sit through the kind of drivel he posts here.
What do you mean drivel? He claims to have a BA and an MA. Won't say where from and what in though...

My work these days is mainly in usability engineering. Wooter epitomises one of the truisms in the field, that it as soon as you come up with something that is idiot proof the world invents a better idiot.

993. Two More Fleas

Comment #146473 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 5:54 am

Comment #146471 by al-rawandi


He is even quoting the questions we ask him, then proceeding to rant about his "LOGIC", and not answer the question which he even quotes, so we know he sees the questions. He is completely intellectually incompetent. He really is the dumbest person ever to post here.

Glad you have arrived - we really need someone to provide a time of death.

994. Two More Fleas

Comment #146469 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 5:49 am

Comment #146463 by alan baylis


Calilasseia comment 146094
may I say that I found your brief account of variation and natural selection eventually leading to speciation,and the evidence for it, to be laid out quite brilliantly.
Calilasseia comments mainly in the forums. Good solid posts with excellent explanatory power.

To get the best out of the posts though you need to read them, something wooter is either incapable or unwilling to do.

995. Two More Fleas

Comment #146462 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 5:42 am

Comment #146445 by MPhil


The hypotheses and modifications thereof are arrived at through induction - indeed so are the paradigm shifts in the history of science.
Doesn't this reflect Hume's comments on the psychological element of induction rather than its logical element?

Still, as we know - every observation is theory-laden, and therefore every such induction also contains connotations, expectations and is part of an overarching interpretation-schema - and thus there is no such thing as 'pure induction'.
At least that's how I see it.
Custom and habit?

996. Fleabytes

Comment #146453 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 5:25 am

Comment #146448 by Quetzalcoatl

A snippet from last night that might help with this:

"If someone asks me where the evidence is, then I would immediately ask them to explain what they mean by evidence".
I did not have sex with that woman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_did_not_have_sexual_relations_with_that_woman

997. Two More Fleas

Comment #146432 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #146419 by clearmind


the four things required for evolution to work:
a. An open system
b. A source of energy
c. A mechanism to capture energy
d. A mechanism to convert energy into usable energy for doing work.

Wooter - do you spend all your time in a cellar?

Go outside, look up in the sky. There is a big yellow thing there (it might be behind clouds, this does not mean it does not exist). This object is called "the sun", it generates about 386 billion million gigawatts. About 1400 watts per square metre hits the earth's atmosphere and some 164 watts per square metre reaches the ground.

This makes the earth an open thermodynamic system with an external energy source. Plant chlorophyll can capture that energy using redox reactions for the concomitant synthesis of ATP.

All of this is in elementary biology text books. Stop sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la".

998. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146063 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 2:53 pm

People might want to read this as well:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

999. Fleabytes

Comment #145947 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 11:36 am

Comment #145943 by mlearnedfriend

The claim that the bible is 'a secondary source' needs some qualifications from you before I can accept it.
All you are going to get is some hand waving, I am operating completely out of area on this. Really it needs someone like Cartomancer to give a definitive answer.

My understanding is that one of the differences between primary and secondary is the question of filtering through interpretation. To attempt an example, if there are had been census documents for Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem then this would have been a primary source. The gospels interpret the putative events, so they must be counted as secondary.

As I say, I am not a historian so take this with a large amount of salt.

Anyway this is the last you will get from me this evening. I am now off to be poked and hit over the head with three foot pieces of steel...

1000. Fleabytes

Comment #145939 by epeeist on March 18, 2008 at 11:01 am

Comment #145936 by mlearnedfriend


I tend to take the counsel of 'epeeist' in this area. With archaeology we are dealing with an imperfect record so it is difficult to prove that something is untrue from its absence.
You flatter me, I lifted it from Carl Sagan and I'm sure he wasn't the first to use it.
Was Nazareth a town at the time of Jesus?
I won't comment on the history, others with more knowledge than I can do that.

What you have shown is that multiple sources have found no empirical evidence for a "Nazareth" at the time of the purported Jesus. Now this doesn't rule out the place existing, but it does lower the probabilities somewhat.

You also have some written evidence from the bible, but this doesn't advance your claim as much as you think because a) it is a secondary source, b) the sources you quote are not independent of each other, c) the writers were not historians, they were writing from the basis of their beliefs, and d) they were probably trying to align the story to earlier biblical prophecies.

However, at least you have actually presented something that can form the basis of a forensic debate.

More Pages: Previous | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 | Next