A few questions for fellow atheists

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Lincoln
As usual you did not consider the rim of the vessel. The "thirty cubits" is the measurment of the vessel proper. The diameter of the "brim" is clearly ten cubits. That really should not be too hard even for an atheist to figure out.

I love killing this. Always the first one you try, isn't it? One thing I knew that you didn't though. The "molten sea" is mentioned in 2 Chronicles as well.

4:2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
...
4:5 And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.


Your brim isn't anywhere near thick enough. You lose. But thanks for playing.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, having just been told that there are precise violations of newtonian physics naturally occuring for no reason at religious sites around the world and nowhere else, I'm not sure that I'm the idiot here. Be that as it may, I salute you on your moral logic. "They started it." That's just beautiful.

Is this a "Great Scientific Conspiricy" claim, or are you saying that there's flaws with newtonian physics? (Which there are, but hey, it's not like his original theories haven't since been corrected, even if they do only teach his original versions [the simplistic versions] in high school classrooms.)

Originally posted by Elok
Oh, please. Obviously he should have made a molten sea compassed about by 31.4195 cubits, right? Well, I apologize on behalf of my faith for the scientific inaccuracy. Never mind that a cubit is a unit of measurement based loosely on the length of one's forearm, and that the ancient Hebrews may or may not have had decimal points in their numbering system. This is still just inexcusable. Psht. Again, where are you people digging up these quotes? Is there some website somewhere providing lots of biblical nitpicking excerpts or something?

Would you mean something like this?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Or this?

http://www.stardestroyer.net/creationism/

That one I pointed out there is a pretty well known flaw in the bible. If your debating opponent is assuming that the bible must be taken literally, as much fundies do, then it's a quick decapitating stroke for his arguements.

Originally posted by Elok
I've had several psych teachers and professors tell me that the 10% figure is largely an invention of talk show hosts. And please tell me you are not claiming that palm-reading works. You might as well follow horoscopes, or fortune cookies. And, again, have you heard of thermodynamics? There must be energy going in to maintain a steady projection of outward energy. Old nuns and ascetics are not known for eating a big breakfast, nor could even thirty of them together gather enough energy to lift seventeen trees above their heads by any means for any period of time. Do you believe in any unsubstantiated malarky, provided it isn't theistic unsubstantiated malarky?

I'll leave the rest to the other, but I already provided a rebuttal to Creationist Thermodynamics claims a while back. It's based upon a flawed understanding of what thermodynamic laws actually are. And quite frankly, it's not our fault that you can't be bothered to learn them properly, and instead use strawman distortions of them to make psudoscientific claims.

[Frogman]

from Master Zen

Thats the way to think . I guess we're more on the same wavelength than I thought...

Considering that I go to a Sunday School class and worship every week and have read and studied the Bible cover to cover I suppose I'm more inclined to accept the possibility of a caring God than you are. On the other hand I don't gloss over the inconsistancies in the Bible and after all that time and study the picture I get of God from the Bible doesn't really appeal to me. I much more like the description in the Conversations With God trilogy of books, but God is still a mystery to me, and I can't swear for sure he exists.

I think we agree is that the whole thing is a big unknown and count on science to progress and discover more of the truth. I like to find out why people believe what they do and tend to argue with the people who think they already know the truth. That includes atheists and the religious.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Archaic


I love killing this. Always the first one you try, isn't it? One thing I knew that you didn't though. The "molten sea" is mentioned in 2 Chronicles as well.

Your brim isn't anywhere near thick enough. You lose. But thanks for playing.

This seems to be a minor point and not necessarily convincing. Lots of numbers in the OT are rounded to the nearest mulitiple of 5. We can't assume their counting system was the same as ours. Why are so many of the ages quoted either mulitples of 5 or a multiple of 5 with 7 added (Methusalah is +14)? There is something going on with that and rounding to 30 vs 31.416 isn't the biggest problem of the OT. A lot harder to defend is the sun reversing direction in the sky. If you can accept that, then rounding a number is no big deal.

[Elok]

Is this a "Great Scientific Conspiricy" claim, or are you saying that there's flaws with newtonian physics? (Which there are, but hey, it's not like his original theories haven't since been corrected, even if they do only teach his original versions [the simplistic versions] in high school classrooms.)
I'll leave the rest to the other, but I already provided a rebuttal to Creationist Thermodynamics claims a while back. It's based upon a flawed understanding of what thermodynamic laws actually are. And quite frankly, it's not our fault that you can't be bothered to learn them properly, and instead use strawman distortions of them to make psudoscientific claims.

No, a scientific conspiracy claim would be a form of ad hominem attack, which I try(not always successfully) to avoid. I meant that what you were saying was, "you attacked our beliefs first, so it's okay for us to attack yours," which is a morally bankrupt argument. The reference to newtonian physics was a lil' petty side-barb directed at Zen Master regarding our arguments on miracles. He essentially claimed that the sites of religious miracles were a thus-far inexplicable but eventually scientifically describable exemption to the laws of physics as we know them.
Thank you for the link. Sorry for butting in on your argument, which wasn't directed at me. I thought it was a general challenge to all. That's the problem with these forums.
Strawman distortions my arse. A distortion would be claiming that entropy disproves evolution. I'm not a creationist; I don't care how we got here. What I am saying is more than just scientific fact, it's common sense. No system or reaction can produce more energy than was put into it, unless it does so by converting matter into energy, in which case it will gradually lose mass. Zen Master's claim of weird mental science is exactly that; that a batch of religious individuals on a less-than-standard diet can produce enough energy by some unknown means to accomplish what would otherwise require several pieces of heavy construction equipment, or to continuously frustrate the activity of corpse-eating microbes. It also ignores the fact that these people need to sleep...got it? Don't assume I'm ignorant.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Elok

Well, having just been told that there are precise violations of newtonian physics naturally occuring for no reason at religious sites around the world and nowhere else, I'm not sure that I'm the idiot here. Be that as it may, I salute you on your moral logic. "They started it." That's just beautiful.

So you are again assuming that we know everyting about physics to claim that those occurrances are work of the divine. Have you not gotten the point that we are arguing that some things have no explination and until there is convincing proof otherwise no bit of religious explination will do? Ever heard of voodoo? They do some crazy sh*t too. Miracles? Beats me...

The moment you read about "miracles" occurring in other religions, sects, or groups should be pretty much proof enough that your religion, like theirs, is not the "one true faith". The Christian faith does not have a monopoly on unexplained phenomena.

I've had several psych teachers and professors tell me that the 10% figure is largely an invention of talk show hosts. And please tell me you are not claiming that palm-reading works. You might as well follow horoscopes, or fortune cookies. And, again, have you heard of thermodynamics? There must be energy going in to maintain a steady projection of outward energy. Old nuns and ascetics are not known for eating a big breakfast, nor could even thirty of them together gather enough energy to lift seventeen trees above their heads by any means for any period of time. Do you believe in any unsubstantiated malarky, provided it isn't theistic unsubstantiated malarky?

Well then please explain why a skinny martial artist can break 15 blocks of ice when the strongest man on earth would probably have broken his arm? I'm no neuro-expert so I wouldn't know how much of our brain power we actually use but don't you think that that is an expample of an energy source which seems to come out of "nowhere" or anyway distributed from less than normal means? Now even if you claim miracles to be the work of the divine there is some energy which is making those things happen (you might call it spiritual energy), and that energy does not necessarily have to be just created by God.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Elok


No, a scientific conspiracy claim would be a form of ad hominem attack, which I try(not always successfully) to avoid. I meant that what you were saying was, "you attacked our beliefs first, so it's okay for us to attack yours," which is a morally bankrupt argument. The reference to newtonian physics was a lil' petty side-barb directed at Zen Master regarding our arguments on miracles. He essentially claimed that the sites of religious miracles were a thus-far inexplicable but eventually scientifically describable exemption to the laws of physics as we know them.
Thank you for the link. Sorry for butting in on your argument, which wasn't directed at me. I thought it was a general challenge to all. That's the problem with these forums.
Strawman distortions my arse. A distortion would be claiming that entropy disproves evolution. I'm not a creationist; I don't care how we got here. What I am saying is more than just scientific fact, it's common sense. No system or reaction can produce more energy than was put into it, unless it does so by converting matter into energy, in which case it will gradually lose mass. Zen Master's claim of weird mental science is exactly that; that a batch of religious individuals on a less-than-standard diet can produce enough energy by some unknown means to accomplish what would otherwise require several pieces of heavy construction equipment, or to continuously frustrate the activity of corpse-eating microbes. It also ignores the fact that these people need to sleep...got it? Don't assume I'm ignorant.

You seem to be very adept at knowing what science is not capable of explaining. Yet at the same time you apparently believe all of this can be attributed to your theories of the divine. I ask you, do you know everything that religioun can explain? Is there something, god forbid, that religion can't? I suggest you start using the same standards to disqualify all theories and not just the ones that you find inconvenient to making your point.

[Elok]

So you are again assuming that we know everyting about physics to claim that those occurrances are work of the divine. Have you not gotten the point that we are arguing that some things have no explination and until there is convincing proof otherwise no bit of religious explination will do? Ever heard of voodoo? They do some crazy sh*t too. Miracles? Beats me...
The moment you read about "miracles" occurring in other religions, sects, or groups should be pretty much proof enough that your religion, like theirs, is not the "one true faith". The Christian faith does not have a monopoly on unexplained phenomena.
Well then please explain why a skinny martial artist can break 15 blocks of ice when the strongest man on earth would probably have broken his arm? I'm no neuro-expert so I wouldn't know how much of our brain power we actually use but don't you think that that is an expample of an energy source which seems to come out of "nowhere" or anyway distributed from less than normal means? Now even if you claim miracles to be the work of the divine there is some energy which is making those things happen (you might call it spiritual energy), and that energy does not necessarily have to be just created by God.

All I am saying is that, if there are fifteen impossible occurences at fifteen different religious sites, and you insist it's fifteen different coincidental scientific anomalies, you, my friend, are in denial. I do not claim that the Christian faith as such has a "monopoly"-if God chooses to answer prayers in good faith that were addressed to a mistaken concept of the divine, that's his business. Didn't say the devil couldn't pull some funny stuff either. If we factor in miracles outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition, your insistence that there is no god or gods seems all the stranger.
I'm guessing that you refer to the Dim Pak(sp?), the Tai Chi move known more popularly as the "touch of death." I do not deny that the power of the human mind is impressive, but tai chi masters credit "the touch" to the focus and concentration of the body's naturally existing vital energies at a central point, like a biological laser. There is no magical appearance of power. And such displays are a sudden, forceful manifestation of power, completely different from the steady maintenance of the miracles I described. Plus they imply a projection of energy outside of the body itself, which is not found in martial arts, though it is present in, say, the spiritual traditions of the aborigines, who have been observed in telepathy.
Regardless, all such disciplines are just that-disciplines, developed over years of training. Christianity, like many other religions, differs from tai chi in that its disciples do not look inward but towards heaven. The body is generally mortified through fasting, hour after hour of sleepless prayer, and deliberate physical discomfort. Many hermits dress in heavy chains and sleep on slabs of rock. The health and development of the body is ignored, as hermits trust to God for their well-being. Prayer is focused outwards, and the only inward contemplation is prior to confession. Physical movements are limited to bows, prostrations, and the like. The whole outlook and style of life is different. Christianity and its rituals were not developed for the sake of groovy powers; those are a side bonus. The actual life of ascetics couldn't have less to do with the acquisition of personal power. If you're suggesting that immense power can come by accident, well, there are some tai chi masters out there who probably wanna smack you a good one.

[Elok]

You seem to be very adept at knowing what science is not capable of explaining. Yet at the same time you apparently believe all of this can be attributed to your theories of the divine. I ask you, do you know everything that religioun can explain? Is there something, god forbid, that religion can't? I suggest you start using the same standards to disqualify all theories and not just the ones that you find inconvenient to making your point.

Sorry, I think we've had a misunderstanding. I do not believe science is worthless, and I maintain that its purpose is completely different from religion. Science is a method of describing reality, yes, and it will do as far as I'm concerned, because it's not the business of religion to tell us about buoyancy or what-have-you. Where I disagree with you is on your apparent insistence that science can perform the duties of religion. Science explains the what, and religion covers the why, so to speak. I'm not a creationist, nor do I plan on talking about how the Calvin and Krebs cycles are really caused by God thumbing His nose at the trees, or anything like that. Science covers that portion of our lives admirably. Where it fails utterly is the improvement of the human soul, and I hope it will never even try. That's why we need religion. That, and religion is true. Didn't you know that?

Sorry again for the misunderstanding, which is what there seems to have been.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Archaic
Or this?

http://www.stardestroyer.net/creationism/

Talk origins is a much better site to rebut creationist arguements than resorting to a Star Wars Fan site.

[yavoon]

ummm elok science explains thousands of why's. it just doesn't presum ethere is an emotional motivation of a supernatural being behind them.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Elok

All I am saying is that, if there are fifteen impossible occurences at fifteen different religious sites, and you insist it's fifteen different coincidental scientific anomalies, you, my friend, are in denial. I do not claim that the Christian faith as such has a "monopoly"-if God chooses to answer prayers in good faith that were addressed to a mistaken concept of the divine, that's his business. Didn't say the devil couldn't pull some funny stuff either. If we factor in miracles outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition, your insistence that there is no god or gods seems all the stranger.

"Impossible"? Just because we can't explain them with science yet? Considering science has been able to explain all other 15 billion miracles ocurring in 15 billion religious and non-religious sites (and who knows what else it'll explain in the future...).

Rain and earthquakes in 4000BC were surely considered a miracle too...

As for outside miracles, my point was then you claim to follow the Christian faith which has a certain set of beliefs, yet if other religions have their own miracles proving (from your PoV, not mine) the existence of other beliefs then why do you assume Christianity is right? One thing is not believing, another is believing in a generic God (which granted may exist as I have said) and another is believing the stuff your parents told you, and who'se parents told them and so and so...

I'm guessing that you refer to the Dim Pak(sp?), the Tai Chi move known more popularly as the "touch of death." I do not deny that the power of the human mind is impressive, but tai chi masters credit "the touch" to the focus and concentration of the body's naturally existing vital energies at a central point, like a biological laser. There is no magical appearance of power. And such displays are a sudden, forceful manifestation of power, completely different from the steady maintenance of the miracles I described. Plus they imply a projection of energy outside of the body itself, which is not found in martial arts, though it is present in, say, the spiritual traditions of the aborigines, who have been observed in telepathy.

yet it's energy which is channeled not by normal means as I said in my post. You can't discard the fact that miracles operate much the same way. I wouldn't know.

Regardless, all such disciplines are just that-disciplines, developed over years of training. Christianity, like many other religions, differs from tai chi in that its disciples do not look inward but towards heaven. The body is generally mortified through fasting, hour after hour of sleepless prayer, and deliberate physical discomfort. Many hermits dress in heavy chains and sleep on slabs of rock. The health and development of the body is ignored, as hermits trust to God for their well-being. Prayer is focused outwards, and the only inward contemplation is prior to confession. Physical movements are limited to bows, prostrations, and the like. The whole outlook and style of life is different. Christianity and its rituals were not developed for the sake of groovy powers; those are a side bonus. The actual life of ascetics couldn't have less to do with the acquisition of personal power. If you're suggesting that immense power can come by accident, well, there are some tai chi masters out there who probably wanna smack you a good one.

Is prayer not a way of challenging inner power? Do really look towards heaven when you pray or actually are you doing the same thing as meditating except with a figure of Christ in front of you?

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Frogman


This seems to be a minor point and not necessarily convincing. Lots of numbers in the OT are rounded to the nearest mulitiple of 5. We can't assume their counting system was the same as ours. Why are so many of the ages quoted either mulitples of 5 or a multiple of 5 with 7 added (Methusalah is +14)? There is something going on with that and rounding to 30 vs 31.416 isn't the biggest problem of the OT. A lot harder to defend is the sun reversing direction in the sky. If you can accept that, then rounding a number is no big deal.

It's a rather significant point, because, like I said, it defeats a literalist reading of the bible. The moment you start making any other interpretations like that (ie. Your "I don't like this number, but it's kinda close to what it should be, so it must be rounded"), then you've gone off a literalist reading. That's something you will *not* see Fundi's do.

Originally posted by Frogman
Talk origins is a much better site to rebut creationist arguements than resorting to a Star Wars Fan site.

And Talt.Origins is also rather daunting to many people, while a "Star wars fansite" isn't. (It's actually not that, so I'm assuming you didn't bother to even visit the site. Quite frankly, in Mike Wong's case, I'd hardly call it resorting. He's a good resource. And while he may not have the level of info of talk.origins, generally you wouldn't need anything more than what he has on his site to rebut all but the most diehard creationists)

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Elok


Sorry, I think we've had a misunderstanding. I do not believe science is worthless, and I maintain that its purpose is completely different from religion. ....... Where it fails utterly is the improvement of the human soul, and I hope it will never even try. That's why we need religion. That, and religion is true. Didn't you know that?

Sorry again for the misunderstanding, which is what there seems to have been.

Which religion is true? With the whole Bible at their side, the best Christians can do for describing God is to call It a Trinity which is itself declared a mystery. After reading the Bible I still don't know what heaven is supposed to be like but I should sacrifice everything in this life to get there? Its not even entirely clear whether Christians believe in a resurrection to a physical or a spirtitual body. Religion is true? I wish it were. Unfortunately religion has conflicting truths even within the same faith.

Sure science and religion have different aims. Science aims to find the truth. Religion claims to have it. Sadly, the odds of your particular religion being the one with the truth is pretty small. I go to a Presbyterian church, and we have a wide variety of beliefs from literalists to people like me and few of us think John Calvin had the truth.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Archaic


It's a rather significant point, because, like I said, it defeats a literalist reading of the bible. The moment you start making any other interpretations like that (ie. Your "I don't like this number, but it's kinda close to what it should be, so it must be rounded"), then you've gone off a literalist reading. That's something you will *not* see Fundi's do.

I'm not a literalist, but I've argued with a few. Literalists have to ignore the kinda close stuff and you're not going to shake them with that one. I'm in a Sunday School class with a few of them who actually believe dinosaurs were on the ark and that all humans are descended from Noah. What they have a hard time explaining is the Nephilim Gen 6:4 and their decendants, the Anakites of Numbers 13:33. Now that shakes them. They always say they'll get back to me on it but they never do.