Forums | MacLife

user · 2007-06-22 5:46 pm

And a little more...

StaticAge wrote:
user wrote:
Atheists are not making an assertion. They are merely disbelieving. According to your statement, we should now expect from you proof that fairies, unicorns, Kali and Thor don't exist.
That just it- you are very much making an assertion. You cant back out of it by saying something and then saying you didn't have to say it so you dont need to back it up with a logical argument or other evidence.

You're missing the point that I made that if atheists must prove that god does not exist, then theists have an equal responsibility to prove that other gods that they don't believe in also do not exist.

user wrote:
You're missing the whole point of the argument. The very existence of the universe is NOT proof of god. There is no more proof of god than there are of dragons. All we have of god are stories that people have told.

And, guess what!

All we have of dragons are stories that people have told.
It is no more reasonable to be a deist than to believe in dragons, spaghetti monsters, or orbiting teapots.

You're just fooling yourself.

StaticAge wrote:
Except you are contending these things as if people actually believe in spaghetti monsters and Russell's teapot etc, when no one does, yet people very much do believe in God and gods. We'd all agree that certain things are absurd if people actually believed in them, but that doesnt amount to any evidence as to why people "shouldnt" believe in God or gods.

No, the point is that belief in gods is equally absurd.

user wrote:
No, asking for evidence is certainly a logical request. You are just choosing to be illogical.

You "know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a God" only because you want it to be true. Even then you have to defend that belief against your own intelligence. When a storm wipes out hundreds of the faithful you have to satisfy yourself with "god works in mysterious ways" instead of understanding that a storm is an unfeeling and uncaring natural manifestation out of the control of any supernatural agency. Many Christians attend "revivals" to buck themselves up against the natural process of their intelligence that leads them to disbelieve.

StaticAge wrote:
Then how come you have to buy books to boost your own preconceived conclusions about the lack of God or gods and why do you constantly feel the need to justify these beliefs of yours?

I'm not justifying my "beliefs". I see someone posting about their beliefs in magic and I respond. Just an interesting thing to do. I get such different reactions from people. For one thing, the very fact that you ask me why I need to justify my beliefs - this is MiniThink! If this were a political discussion, you might ask me for links, but you certainly wouldn't ask me why I was arguing at all.

I buy those books for entertainment and to see if the author make points about the issue better and more eloquently than I do. I actually don't do that much. Most of my interest is in seeing the challenges other people face. I'll get bored with it, eventually, unless the separation of church and state continues to be challenged as it has been since the 50s.

Last edited by user (2007-06-22 6:25 pm)

user · 2007-06-22 5:56 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
By definition, an atheist believes there is no god(s). You keep presenting the view of a skeptic/agnostic.

An atheist does not believe gods exist. I don't believe any gods exist. I think that they are all made up by men and that the belief in gods continues to be perpetuated because of people's fear and the desire of some people to control others.

An agnostic simply thinks that gods are unlikely. I don't see how you are getting an agnostic viewpoint out of my posts.

user · 2007-06-22 6:27 pm

resedit wrote:
user wrote:
To be more precise, my point is that Daniel must be interpreted to arrive at the conclusion that it even contains prophecy, let alone whether it is correct.
It either contains prophecy or it contains history - because what is spelled out in Daniel 11 exactly how things went down. There is no third option.

It is history or it is prophecy.

Oh, come on! Of course there's another option. Daniel could be just some ancient writings that have been willingly interpreted to be prophetic because that's the way some people want it to be.

resedit · 2007-06-22 8:08 pm

I don't think you understand just how historically accurate that passage is. It describes what happened to Greece after the fall of Alexander the Great - with the Ptolemies and the Selucids. There is no way it is talking about anything else. Either it is a second century work writing down history or it is an earlier work predicting very complex political fallout from the death of Alexander the Great in detail. I don't know of a single scholar who sees it any other way - it is one or it is the other. Nobody interprets Daniel 11:3-35 as anything other than the aftermath between Alexander the Great leading up to Antiochus Epiphanes. There is disagreement about 11:36ff - but not 11:3-35.

If Daniel is a 6th (or 5th) century BCE work, then it contains accurate detailed fulfilled prophecy. If it is a 2nd century BCE work, then it contains history written to look like a prophecy.

Metacell · 2007-06-22 8:13 pm

resedit wrote:
user wrote:
To be more precise, my point is that Daniel must be interpreted to arrive at the conclusion that it even contains prophecy, let alone whether it is correct.
It either contains prophecy or it contains history - because what is spelled out in Daniel 11 exactly how things went down. There is no third option.

It is history or it is prophecy.

No there is a third option: it contained both history and prophecy. Interestingly enough, the prophecy bit is where it all goes wrong:
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bibl … niel.shtml

The second point is that Daniel's history of the Exile and the fall of Babylon is at odds with known historical facts. In addition, he appears to be confused about details of the reign of the Persian kings. In contrast to this, Daniel's record of the Greeks, and Antiochus in particular, is detailed and precisely accurate - up to a point. That point is 164 BCE. After this point, Daniel predicts further altercations between Antiochus and Ptolemey (the Egyptian king) which never took place. Common sense thus tells us that the book was written just before the death of Antiochus, during a severe persecution of the Jewish people.

And herein lies the purpose for the book of Daniel. Like his New Testament counterpart, the Revelation of John, Daniel was written to strengthen his people during a difficult time. Whereas John wrote to Christians under the persecution of Domitan, Daniel wrote to Jews under the persecution of Antiochus. By casting his history as a series of predictions, Daniel hoped to show that the present sufferings were indeed a part of God's plan for his people. If the author could successfully convince his readers that he was able to accurately foretell the future, he would further be able to convince them that his predictions of the death of Antiochus and the establishment of God's kingdom were predetermined and unavoidable.

How well Daniel succeeded in this endeavor is a matter of speculation. Although he influenced those of an apocalytpic bent (particulary the Essene community), his work was largely ignored by the mainstream Judaism of his time. It did eventually find a niche in the Jewish canon, but was placed in the section called the Writings. It was not accorded the status of a prophetic book.

Pariah · 2007-06-22 8:59 pm

And another discussion of a current crisis degrades into a debate about the meaning of a 2000 year old book.

Is it any wonder things are so smurfed up?

StaticAge · 2007-06-22 9:08 pm

user wrote:
And a little more...

You're missing the point that I made that if atheists must prove that god does not exist, then theists have an equal responsibility to prove that other gods that they don't believe in also do not exist.

No, the point is that belief in gods is equally absurd.

I am not saying that theists dont have any responsibility to present arguments and evidence if they are involved in a debate on the matter, I am saying that by engaging in a debate, BOTH sides are obliged to do so.

You also have this idea as if there is only one "right" way to determine who has justification for beliefs, which I think is ridiculous. Dont get me wrong, science and logic are awesome, but I dont see where its obtained that if someone chooses to ignore science or logic that they are also by definition "wrong." The discussion ends, the same as if we were having a discussion on which stocks are best and the other party says they are communist and dont believe in investing in the stock market- the discussion is over, but that doesnt mean that the communist was proved "wrong." If we are discussing faith and you tell me you dont have it, then thats you and this is me and theres nowhere to go. It doesnt give me any way to judge myself superior to you and it doesnt give you that perspective either.

Logic and science just are not the be all end all to me. Like I said before, there are plenty ideas and feelings I have (like love for instance, or aesthetic taste) which may not have a "rational" scientific or logical foundation, and I feel perfectly justified in having them regardless, as many others are. Somehow when it comes to religion, my personal perspective isnt good enough and science and logic MUST come first as if there is some authority I must answer to before making my mind up. Now, if this was a political discussion and it was on the merits of religious thought in politics it would be another ball of wax, but its not that level, this is just the way people either believe in god(s) or not. You wouldnt dare catch me arguing that people who dont believe in God are less ____ than I am; for whatever reason the new age atheist fundies seem to feel its theirs to make sure everyone knows that religious persons are "illogical" or "unscientific" and therefore "wrong" on some level. If youre going to play on that field then you had better believe that people are going to call you out for evidence of where this over-aching perspective you feel free to call down on others is obtained from.

user wrote:
I'm not justifying my "beliefs". I see someone posting about their beliefs in magic and I respond. Just an interesting thing to do. I get such different reactions from people. For one thing, the very fact that you ask me why I need to justify my beliefs - this is MiniThink! If this were a political discussion, you might ask me for links, but you certainly wouldn't ask me why I was arguing at all.

I buy those books for entertainment and to see if the author make points about the issue better and more eloquently than I do. I actually don't do that much. Most of my interest is in seeing the challenges other people face. I'll get bored with it, eventually, unless the separation of church and state continues to be challenged as it has been since the 50s.

Yet you assume that religious people who congregate together or read religious books are doing it because they are trying to strengthen their doubts etc. Why do you just automatically assume they are different beasts than yourself? As if they couldnt have similar reasons to yours? And they call religious people judgmental…

user · 2007-06-22 10:47 pm

Static, where are you getting me calling religious people as being lesser than myself? That's a characteristic that you have laid onto me yourself, which is something that you tend to do. Actually it does support my point that atheists who criticize religion are unjustly labeled as "militant" or "fundamentalist". All I have done is point out that there is NO evidence for god's existence, much less scientific evidence.

Sure, you can have all the beliefs you want. You can believe in the Easter Bunny if you want to. But be prepared for me to ask you how you know its true if you come to me claiming that the Easter Bunny is going to save my "soul" if I believe in him - or else. Logic and science are the best thing we've got going for us. It is what has brought us so far. Emotions are the spice of life and they are indispensable in choosing a mate. But they are of little use in trying to figure out the world.

I'm not assuming that people attending a revival - which is the specific gathering I mentioned, not ALL gatherings - are looking to buck up their faith. I KNOW they are. It's the whole point of a revival. I've attended them myself. Once again, I don't know where you are getting this "different beast" stuff. Like I said before I was a theist once.

user · 2007-06-22 10:57 pm

Pariah wrote:
And another discussion of a current crisis degrades into a debate about the meaning of a 2000 year old book.

No, unfortunately, it's the same debate.

Maybe someone could start posting about the modern situation. My eyes will promptly glaze over and you'll likely not see me in the thread again.

resedit · 2007-06-23 5:55 am

After this point, Daniel predicts further altercations between Antiochus and Ptolemey (the Egyptian king) which never took place.

Which is after the verse I pointed as where dispute begins.

The claim is that he incorrectly prophecies the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. However, interpreting those verses as AE is problematic.

He correctly predicts the death of AE in an earlier passage (where he specifies that he will die but not in human hands) so what some interpret as him talking about AE doesn't fit the text, as an earlier prophecy in the book says that AE will die but not by human hands. Therefore the text itself does not support the interpretation of the military death of AE.

Furthermore, after the alleged mis-interpretation, he says the end of the world will come - but earlier in Daniel, he gave the 70 weeks of years. So if it was written in 2nd century BCE before AE died - and predicts the end of the world after his death - why then would it have prophecy about things 200 years in the future? It doesn't fit the text - so it can't be talking about AE.

Finally - between the passages no one disputes as Greek politics and the passage that is disputed, he has a very clear break in the politics - so to assume that when he restarts he is talking about the same dude as before the distinctive break is very problematic.

The verse range I mentioned as not being disputed is not disputed - and can only be prophecy or history written to look like prophecy, as I stated.

user · 2007-06-23 9:35 am

resedit wrote:
The claim is that he incorrectly prophecies the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. However, interpreting those verses as AE is problematic.

He correctly predicts the death of AE in an earlier passage (where he specifies that he will die but not in human hands) so what some interpret as him talking about AE doesn't fit the text, as an earlier prophecy in the book says that AE will die but not by human hands. Therefore the text itself does not support the interpretation of the military death of AE.

Furthermore, after the alleged mis-interpretation...

resedit · 2007-06-23 11:24 am

user wrote:
resedit wrote:
The claim is that he incorrectly prophecies the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. However, interpreting those verses as AE is problematic.

He correctly predicts the death of AE in an earlier passage (where he specifies that he will die but not in human hands) so what some interpret as him talking about AE doesn't fit the text, as an earlier prophecy in the book says that AE will die but not by human hands. Therefore the text itself does not support the interpretation of the military death of AE.

Furthermore, after the alleged mis-interpretation...

What's your point?
Those verses are not part of the verse range that I specified is agreed upon by all scholars as the political state of Greece from Alexander the Great to Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Those verses with disputed interpretation are AFTER the verses everyone agrees upon - and they agree for good reason, because it is spot on what happened.

JakeTheTall · 2007-06-23 11:43 am

Even if Daniel got his "prophecies" correct, how many other writers missed the mark, and were forgotten about by history ? The editors of the Holy Bible, when they decided what made it in, and what didn't, surely didn't let writings from incorrect prophets in. But you find a few people who guessed well, and BAM ! you have proof of your God.

We call it "selection bias."

If a monkey throwing darts at the WSJ's stock listings in 1970 picks all winners, do we make him a "prophet" today ?

resedit · 2007-06-23 11:45 am

user wrote:
The valid logical reason to reject it as some sort of validation of the bible is that the evidence depends on how the Book of Daniel is interpreted.

Isaac Newton was not wrong.

Newton laws of motion.

When you have motion, you no longer have a common frame of reference.
They are extremely accurate for similar frames of reference and good enough for most engineering, but they are not correct because motion is involved.

bratboy · 2007-06-23 1:56 pm

The only rational belief is agnosticism, in my opinion.

nerd

StaticAge · 2007-06-23 7:12 pm

user wrote:
Logic and science are the best thing we've got going for us. It is what has brought us so far. Emotions are the spice of life and they are indispensable in choosing a mate. But they are of little use in trying to figure out the world.

Let me try and say what I mean another way.

You dont need faith or spirit to explain anything in your life, so if someone were to come up and preach to you about some need you have to be saved, it doesnt make much sense because you have all you need, right? Their appeal is towards some outside authority, and you have all the authority you need to live.

In a similar way, when I feel perfectly fine having faith and believing in spirit and so on, and when someone makes the claim as if there is some duty I have to reject how I feel and ignore my convictions because of logic or science, I want to know why my natural feelings must be denied in the name of some outside so-called objective authority. I would guess that the way such an appeal seems artificial and contrived to me seems very similar to how you feel appeal to gods etc are.

I dont think either the religious or irreligious person is more or less rational, I think humans are inescapably logical, and that no sane person does something for no reason or against what they really feel is "right." I mean, Hitler was a logical person- he had reasons behind his actions. You look on both sides of a political debate and each side has their reasons- no one gets up there and just makes arbitrary assertions for no reason whatsoever. Even emotions are usually logical- when you are mad, you are mad because of some reason. When you are happy, you are happy because; when sad, sad because, etc.

But which reasons are the "right" reasons? What the hell is "right" anyway? Where in nature does such a concept even arise? I'm not saying this to muddle up anything, and I even know that science seeks these answers too and comes up with theories and psychologies to try and explain it, so I am not claiming it cant be explained. But I am saying that it is a somewhat uniquely human thing to claim that there must be a "right" way of doing things and of living a life. When you assert that the end of the road, that the thing all must be answerable to is this thing called Logic, why dont I have such ideas naturally in my head? Why must I study these sorts of things with the end result being to deprive myself of my emotions to be "right?"

In the same way that someone reading some old book to tell you something you have to do has a long way to go in proving that there is really some outside authority impending upon you to cause you to do that which you naturally would reject, so you have a long way to go in trying to convince spiritually minded persons that they are "wrong" in feeling the way they do and there it is imperative for them to change their ways and subscribe to the sort of refined logic and science you think would better them.

I know you arent saying emotions should not count too, obviously. I am wondering where this idea of "should" is even coming from though- why "should" human beings be such a way and not another way?

user · 2007-06-23 7:35 pm

Again with the claim that I am saying anything about what anyone "Should" do.

I guess the impulse to always see authoritarism is strong in the theist worldview.

StaticAge · 2007-06-23 10:39 pm

user wrote:
Again with the claim that I am saying anything about what anyone "Should" do.

I guess the impulse to always see authoritarism is strong in the theist worldview.

Hold on then- what is your point in this thread? Why are you arguing against the religious beliefs of other persons if you dont think that there is something wrong with them or that something "should" be otherwise?

The impulse to be blind even to one's own motives is strong in atheists? wink

Hank Rearden · 2007-06-23 10:47 pm

user wrote:
I don't believe any gods exist.

I'm always puzzled, though, by how you think that everything got here in the first place.

ShnickyShnack · 2007-06-23 11:11 pm

Hank Rearden wrote:
user wrote:
I don't believe any gods exist.
I'm always puzzled, though, by how you think that everything got here in the first place.

A random turn of the dice but no one rolled 'em!

Welcome back, by the way. Nice to see they finally brought Internet access to the compound!

Hank Rearden · 2007-06-23 11:17 pm

ShnickyShnack wrote:
Hank Rearden wrote:
user wrote:
I don't believe any gods exist.
I'm always puzzled, though, by how you think that everything got here in the first place.
A random turn of the dice but no one rolled 'em!

Welcome back, by the way. Nice to see they finally brought Internet access to the compound!

Thanks. Facebook got me, actually. But now that I've amassed 200 "friends", half of whom are dorks from high school that I was quite glad that I had lost contact with, I think that I'm safe to come back here and join the fray. Facebook is like Unplugged on steroids. I don't know what I was thinking.

user · 2007-06-23 11:32 pm

Hank Rearden wrote:
user wrote:
I don't believe any gods exist.
I'm always puzzled, though, by how you think that everything got here in the first place.

I don't know, but I think invisible supernatural intelligences are extremely unlikely as a cause. Especially the strange things we have come up with. A belief in creator gods is just giving a human intelligence to natural objects.

For example, if we want something to happen, we have to build it. So, it's only natural that we suppose the same thing to occur to create the world. The thing is, our building materials are the substance of this world, and when we build something we have to maintain it or else it will eventually break down back into those worldly substances.

Meanwhile, the natural world chugs merrily along in its cycles, with nary a hand required to maintain it. Is it so impossible that the world just IS?

Last edited by user (2007-06-23 11:38 pm)

user · 2007-06-23 11:34 pm

StaticAge wrote:
user wrote:
Again with the claim that I am saying anything about what anyone "Should" do.

I guess the impulse to always see authoritarism is strong in the theist worldview.
Hold on then- what is your point in this thread? Why are you arguing against the religious beliefs of other persons if you dont think that there is something wrong with them or that something "should" be otherwise?

The impulse to be blind even to one's own motives is strong in atheists?

I'm saying their beliefs are wrong and I'm giving my reasons why I think this is so.

That's not telling others what they should think. It's expressing what I think.

user · 2007-06-23 11:47 pm

resedit wrote:
user wrote:
resedit wrote:
The claim is that he incorrectly prophecies the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. However, interpreting those verses as AE is problematic.

He correctly predicts the death of AE in an earlier passage (where he specifies that he will die but not in human hands) so what some interpret as him talking about AE doesn't fit the text, as an earlier prophecy in the book says that AE will die but not by human hands. Therefore the text itself does not support the interpretation of the military death of AE.

Furthermore, after the alleged mis-interpretation...
What's your point?
Those verses are not part of the verse range that I specified is agreed upon by all scholars as the political state of Greece from Alexander the Great to Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Those verses with disputed interpretation are AFTER the verses everyone agrees upon - and they agree for good reason, because it is spot on what happened.

I said "The valid logical reason to reject it as some sort of validation of the bible is that the evidence depends on how the Book of Daniel is interpreted" and I highlighted a whole paragraph where you used that very term several times in reference to an analysis of Daniel. So you think there's a problem with that part...

OK, but wouldn't you have to agree that the parts of Daniel that you claim universal scholarly agreement on have also been interpreted? Someone read the words and figured out some meaning to them and then decided there was a historical connection. I doubt very much Danny specified the actual names and dates.

Hank Rearden · 2007-06-24 1:01 am

user wrote:
Is it so impossible that the world just IS?

Is anything just IS? Everything that I observe in this universe has a cause.

Admittedly, I still have a bit of the universe left to see, though, so who knows...

Forums | MacLife

#101 2007-06-22 5:46 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

StaticAge wrote:

user wrote:

user wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

user wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

#102 2007-06-22 5:56 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

Tallgeese wrote:

#103 2007-06-22 6:27 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

#104 2007-06-22 8:08 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

#105 2007-06-22 8:13 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

#106 2007-06-22 8:59 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

#107 2007-06-22 9:08 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

user wrote:

user wrote:

#108 2007-06-22 10:47 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

#109 2007-06-22 10:57 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

Pariah wrote:

#110 2007-06-23 5:55 am

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

#111 2007-06-23 9:35 am

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

resedit wrote:

#112 2007-06-23 11:24 am

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

#113 2007-06-23 11:43 am

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

#114 2007-06-23 11:45 am

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

user wrote:

#115 2007-06-23 1:56 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

#116 2007-06-23 7:12 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

user wrote:

#117 2007-06-23 7:35 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

#118 2007-06-23 10:39 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

user wrote:

#119 2007-06-23 10:47 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

user wrote:

#120 2007-06-23 11:11 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

Hank Rearden wrote:

user wrote:

#121 2007-06-23 11:17 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

user wrote:

#122 2007-06-23 11:32 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

Hank Rearden wrote:

user wrote:

#123 2007-06-23 11:34 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

StaticAge wrote:

user wrote:

#124 2007-06-23 11:47 pm

Re: Rockets fired into Israel (w/ end of world sidetrack)

resedit wrote: