I’ve avoided this thread because it seems like the angels on pins argument. However, in reference to Jesus walking on water, I believe the story goes that as he walked across the water holding Mark’s hand, Mark said, “I’m sinking, Jesus, I’m sinking.” Jesus replied, “Step on the rocks you idiot.”
Occam
Sometimes I don’t know when to quit.
Trivia from my interest in medieval history and philosophy:
With a name like Occam you probably already know that ‘How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?’ was originally a problem-question in medieval universities. It is a teacher’s device to teach undergraduates what it means for something to be incorporeal (whether or not it existed). In some distant century, perhaps common lore will have it that the existence of a teapot in high Earth orbit was a serious issue for some benighted philosophers and science popularizers of the 20th century. Heh: and this bit of historical speculation from a 30th century scholar’s Introduction to 20th Century Philosophy: ‘In that long distant age, so newly-stripped was their culture of the comfort of their gods that even many of these early skeptics turned immediately to bizarre and esoteric cults, such as ‘Bob’ and the ‘Flying Spaghetti Minster’ - possibly in superstitious clinging to the ‘minster’ of english churches.
Another teaching sophism was ‘Did Adam have a belly-button?’ There’s a whole book on sophisms - fallacious arguments and the problems they reveal in thinking - written by Buridan called Sophismata Asinina, all of which feature asses, and all of which are ‘asinine’. Tthe first sophism proves that ‘You are an ass’ - meaning the general second person, not you, Occam.
Kirk
snakes do speak Kirk, don’t they? ...what language? armaic? hebrew? english, philipino? I rest my case.
First, the pertinent question wasn’t proving anhy miracles exist, only what Christian theology typically says they are. You’re just too angry to see straight.
Kirk
This is a deliberate attempt to manipulate and you know it. You personalized this right away by saying, “you’re stoned, right?” You’ve replaced it now to deflect from what you have done. Call it fair play in the world of Christain apologetics. Where have I seen this before....
This is for you, Bob, with a nod to the general reader.
No, it’s not a deliberate attempt to manipulate. You strongly imply that i’m a manipulator and liar by those words. And yes of course I wrote something - and then I replaced it, because it was too rude. You know what I think of your attitude pretty well already, and the insult didn’t move debate forward. I’m sorry. But:
I want to appeal to the Moderators on this one. Do Bob’s words now finally count as a personal attack by the rules of the Forum? Sure, I want a Moderator to say ‘yep’ partly for my hurt little feelings; but there’s also a more important and looming issue about the basic tenor of discussion and decorum in a ‘freethinking’ forum. What counts as truly ‘unfettered’ debate? Isn’t there a teaching aspect to a forum like this? That’s one thing - not the only thing - that attracted me to the freethinkers, the deep presumption about teaching others about reason and science.
Now: I haven’t been *very* polite to you, but i’ve not lied, manipulated or double-talked - double-talk is saying one thing while really thinking something else, right? - and that that’s lying, right? So I’m on pretty solid ground by accusing you of gross impoliteness and cheap, petty, insinuating insults. You think I’m wicked, eh? Well, I think you’re so invincibly ignorant of most of the things you hate that you can’t even sit still and listen to a definition of ‘miracle’ without shooting your mouth off about some lying, double-talking manipulator. Get a grip.
That’s all I will say about this particular topic, and much more than is proper probably. But I’ll still debate with you - if you’ve got something that *can* be debated as a *proper* subject upon which *anyone* in the forum can contribute. Your opinion of another forum member isn’t a proper subject for debate. Period. Everyone knows that. On any forum. I’m a little disturbed that your own allies here are shy about schooling you on that. freethinking needs guidance.
I’m not the forum punching bag, and I’m not the Christian who hated on you in school, and I believe what I write, and I’m sincere about it. You Bob, want to convince me my thinking’s off-base, fine - but I’m not sure you care tuppence about me or my thinking. What evidence have I for that?
Now - what is your beef about miracles? I mean besides the mere assertion, sans evidence, that you don’t believe that they occur?
snakes do speak Kirk, don’t they? ...what language? armaic? hebrew? english, philipino? I rest my case.
Snakes don’t speak generally neither now nor then, and the story doesn’t say that. Your concern with the languages of Eden and if snakes in general talked back then makes you sound a lot like a fallen fundamentalist Protestant. I’m pretty far from one of those, and I just can’t get into that mind-set, on either the pro *or* con side.
But here’s one more try: The story - if you cared - includes a demonic being posing as a snake; it’s not a claim that snakes in general chatted up our early ancestors. Now how can I prove that the Devil took on a snake’s form? - of course I can’t prove that just on its own merits. I happen to doubt there was a snake - but it may well ahave been, because our early ancestors liked to think that way, and how better to talk to someone than in the language an dculture of their time? But the details in general of that story, IMHO, are proved only as a consequence of much more important things. And that’s just another way to say most Christians are utterly bored by the issue you raise (sorry) - we put the things we consider to be important first, and then clean up the Bible-trivia later.
You need to find yourself some fundamentalist Christian to ask this about. I’m not a professional theologian, and it’s just not necessary to my walk with God to be theologically savvy on any subject that concerns even your intelligent and daisy-bedecked head (actually, that would look kind of cool).
Theology and Bible-expertise is relevant to a Christian like ornithology is relevant to an individual bird. It may well be *helpful* to them both, but it’s not completely relevent to furthering their daily tasks and ultimate goals.
snakes do speak Kirk, don’t they? ...what language? armaic? hebrew? english, philipino? I rest my case.
Snakes don’t speak generally neither now nor then, and the story doesn’t say that.
Yes it does (as a ‘learned chrisitian’, you sure do know your bible):
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, ”Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ “ “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” --Genesis 3:1-5--
There is also a story in the torah that relates an incident involving a talking donkey!?! ... so if I understand correctly, that donkey don’t speak either. I thought so. ...again, I rest my case.
“Then the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”
--Numbers 22:28 --
I want to appeal to the Moderators on this one. Do Bob’s words now finally count as a personal attack by the rules of the Forum? Sure, I want a Moderator to say ‘yep’ partly for my hurt little feelings; but there’s also a more important and looming issue about the basic tenor of discussion and decorum in a ‘freethinking’ forum. What counts as truly ‘unfettered’ debate? Isn’t there a teaching aspect to a forum like this? That’s one thing - not the only thing - that attracted me to the freethinkers, the deep presumption about teaching others about reason and science.
As I’ve said, this thread seems to be a meaningless argument about unprovable premises. There are three Moderators and two Administrators, and we often have different views on various aspects of the Forum. I’m posting the following as a Moderator, but it is only my take on the question.
I agree that some of Bob’s rhetoric is harsh, but, reading the posts to which he’s responding, I can understand his frustration. As they say in law, “Truth is a complete defense against libel.” I don’t see Bob’s words as a personal attack on Inthegobi, only a strong attack on what he sees as the irrational and fallacious thinking presented.
As I said, the other Moderators and Adminisrators may weigh in with different opinions.
You are saying that a miracle is subjective and that if to an individual it has meaning, then it’s a miracle; Or does it need to have an objective meaning that even skeptics can see.
Suppose the water-to-wine story is true. We would agree that it happened in the first century AD. May I ask, what would be proof to a skeptic of a miraculous historical event like this miracle purports to be?
Kirk
Thanks for responding to my points-- I’m not trying to set you up.
Will give this more thought…
I think it was about equal. Bob was giving as good as he was getting and I don’t see it as a personal attack either. Such a topic can sometimes bring heated debate esp if two people are on different sides of the issue.
As Occam, points out, we mods don’t always agree on everything. I do agree no rule violations have occurred, but I have to say I think Bob’s rhetoric was inappropriately hostile and not productive in terms of the discussion. We all possess strong feelings about some issues, and the rules of the forum aren’t intended to prohibit all expression of them, only the kind of expressions that impede debate. While I think Kirk is tough enough to take some harsh language, and I think he has chosen to walk into the lions’ den with a full understanding of the likely reception his beliefs will receive, I agree with him that Bob’s comments were pure emotionalism, that it is entirely reasonable to take offence at them, and that the discussion would be better off without terms like “lame” and the general tone of “how can you peddle this crap.” It is a fair sentiment, and I can’t say I disagree with the content, but it is not necessary or helpful to bash away at someone one disagrees with.
It is quite telling when one continually appeals to authority in hopes of winning arguments.
I didn’t win an argument - I got some confirmation that my complaint was reasonable. A rational man could well feel bullied by the response. IMHO, that’s not a win - just some clarity, and some human support (not support for my own arguments.)
I’ve appealed twice in, oh, maybe five months. True, that’s more - two more - than i’ve ever done online. My beliefs and my willingness to air them, and the general attitude of the average posting of the forum, are sufficient to well explanation why anyone such a position might reasonably have ended up complaining. That’s not a complaint, just a decent hypothesis.
An equally rational man would regard your implication that I am not rational as bullying. Or, more to the point, it would be equally irrational from both angles.
Being reasonable when you disagree with someone means accepting that others see things differently from the way that you do, even when you feel offended by their views. And it means saying to them why you disagree with them by appealing to their sense of reason with rational arguments. It does not mean telling them that they had better stop talking. And it most certainly does not mean appealing to political authority figures to stifle their voices.
Personally, I can’t think of a more potent example of bullying then the sort that you are demonstrating.
You are saying that a miracle is subjective and that if to an individual it has meaning, then it’s a miracle; Or does it need to have an objective meaning that even skeptics can see.
Suppose the water-to-wine story is true. We would agree that it happened in the first century AD. May I ask, what would be proof to a skeptic of a miraculous historical event like this miracle purports to be?
Kirk
Thanks for responding to my points-- I’m not trying to set you up.
Will give this more thought…
Maybe there is enough here for a separate thread.
a. There would ALMOST have to be actual physical evidence persisting. A piece of the flying saucer. If the angel XXX gave someone golden tablets with new and revised holy scriptures—don’t tell us the golden tablets have disappeared, let us see them. What should it take to convince US {you and me collectively} that Mormonism is based on a real angel visting Joseph Smith etc.
b. There would ALMOST have to be multiple objective witnesses. This isn’t sufficient.
c. A problem with Biblical accounts seems to be that what we consider “non-fiction” and factual re-telling of events didn’t really occur in the ancient world. Thus there is really a problem with any miracles from ancient times.
As you’ve suggested, there is a logical problem with the definition of the world “miraculous”. Presumably it evades “common-place explanation” but it has to really be more than a coincidence. A person wins the Lotto --somebody has to win—but if I win the Lotto tonight should I call it a miracle? Hmmm. What I mean by “miracle” is incontrovertible evidence of God—this really requires God performing multiple miracles sequentially, each one “confirming” the previous one and reducing the likelihood of superstition.
An equally rational man would regard your implication that I am not rational as bullying. Or, more to the point, it would be equally irrational from both angles.
Being reasonable when you disagree with someone means accepting that others see things differently from the way that you do, even when you feel offended by their views. And it means saying to them why you disagree with them by appealing to their sense of reason with rational arguments. It does not mean telling them that they had better stop talking. And it most certainly does not mean appealing to political authority figures to stifle their voices.
Personally, I can’t think of a more potent example of bullying then the sort that you are demonstrating.
That’s what religion is about. If one says the right things, even if they don’t believe them, they are in, if they however say the “un-right” things regardless of how much logic and and sense these “un-right” things exhume, they get compressed back into their own space, and one of the classical ways to make that happen is “pulling the wip” .
.
