Did the Red Sea Part?
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Maybe they're looking in the wrong place - Yam Suf in Hebrew is not the "Red Sea", it's the Reed Sea.
There was a show about biblical battles on the History Channel that claimed it was the Reed Sea[^] and not the Red sea. They suggested that the Reed sea was a shallow swamp and Moses nipped across during the night while the tide was out. By the time the Egyptians realized they'd gone the tide was coming back in hence blocking their pursuit.
Wjousts wrote:
There was a show about biblical battles on the History Channel that claimed it was the Reed Sea[^] and not the Red sea. They suggested that the Reed sea was a shallow swamp and Moses nipped across during the night while the tide was out. By the time the Egyptians realized they'd gone the tide was coming back in hence blocking their pursuit.
There is no good evidence that the Jews were ever captive in Egypt nor for the exodus. Moses never existed.
John Carson
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I believe there is considerable evidence of God but I cannot prove his existence. I consider nature and life, and the laws of morality and things that to me are unimaginable as being the result of mere chance.
1. Evolution involved chance and natural selection. The latter is non-random. 2. Your argument from personal incredulity is of no value. The power of your imaginings is beside the point. What matters is the evidence and it overwhelmingly points to evolution.
Edmundisme wrote:
A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns. What, in the nature of existence, suggests that there must be unicorns? However, the very nature of existence suggests to me that God exists.
It may suggest that to you, but it doesn't suggest it to me or to others like me. The point is that, to the scientifically minded, one should (provisonally) believe things for which there is compelling evidence and (provisionally) not believe anything for which evidence is lacking. Atheists don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence in favour of God's existence and because of evidence contradicting the existence of some versions of God --- the same reason they (and most people) don't believe in unicorns or teapots orbiting Mars. Scientifically minded atheists don't have any special rules regarding belief in God. They assess the merits of belief in God the same way they assess the merits of belief in anything else. If the evidence is lacking, they don't believe in it.
Edmundisme wrote:
However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different.
Not fundamentally. It is just a matter of the level of confidence. If you think that the evidence in favour is sufficiently weak, then you will be willing to (provisionally) declare that God doesn't exist, just as you will declare that unicorns don't exist. If you are less sure of the evidence, you will merely declare that you are not convinced of God's existence.
Edmundisme wrote:
What is your evidence that he does not exist?
In order for evidence for or against God's existence to be possible, God's existence must have empirical implications. For evidence in favour of God's existence to be persuasive, those empircal implications need to be more than ex post rationalisation of observed fact
John Carson wrote:
1. Evolution involved chance and natural selection. The latter is non-random.
And it all came from what? What is the origin of life? It can't be non-life. Life can't just spring into being and over the course of time become man (I don't care how many millions or trillions of years you want to give it). And where are the transitional species in the fossil record? This is neither here nor there. Whether or not evolution is in some way involved in our history does not shed any light whatsoever on whether or not God exists.
John Carson wrote:
2. Your argument from personal incredulity is of no value. The power of your imaginings is beside the point. What matters is the evidence and it overwhelmingly points to evolution.
Science in all its pomposity has failed to explain how life can simply "become" without there being an intelligent power behind it. Where did the big bang come from? Certainly not nothing. Does absolute origin of life and universe not puzzle you?
John Carson wrote:
and because of evidence contradicting the existence of some versions of God
Such as?
John Carson wrote:
Fundamentalist Christianity tells us that the universe was created ex nihilo less than 10,000 years ago. Mountains of scientific evidence show that to be nonsense. If you want to discuss the evidence for your version of God, tell us what that version is and what empirical predictions follow from that version.
If I believe God exists, why would the apparent age of the earth bother or confound me? Nobody knows whether the six day creation in Genesis is literal or not. But the bible teaches (and I believe) that God created time and is not himself subject to it. It also states that to God, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. The purported age of the earth doesn't concern me or challenge my faith.
John Carson wrote:
In order for evidence for or against God's existence to be possible, God's existence must have empirical implications. For evidence in favour of God's existence to be persuasive, those empircal implications need to be more than ex post rationalisation of observed facts. They need to be ex ante predictions that could turn out to be wrong but in fact turn out to be right. Fundamentalis
-
ibowler wrote:
My point is that the world is absolutely round regardless of a particular person's belief on the matter. The fact that there are differing beliefs does not suggest that none of the beliefs can be the "correct" one.
But absolute fact has to be proven. Let's say you claimed it was a cube and I claimed it was a tetrahedral. We'd both be wrong, but both arguing that we're right. When it comes to God, it is faith that makes us believe, but not doubt that makes us disbelieve. Doubt is not lack of faith, doubt is lack of proof.
ibowler wrote:
I'll admit that I was unaware of the second definition. The one that I come across most often seems to fit the first definition and I was assuming that all atheists held this position. I agree with you that the second definition does not indicate a faith-based belief.
That's what we've been trying to say. Therefore, it cannot be absolutely faith-based atheism. QED.
"If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But absolute fact has to be proven
So the roundness of the earth was not an absolute truth until it was proven to be so? Absolute truth is (by definition) true regardless of whether or not it has been proven. Now deteriming what truths are absolute is a different matter altogether
Ian
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are absoltely correct. Otherwise, on what basis would they be able to differentiate right from wrong. That has to be based upon some kind of moral authority, and that moral authority can only come from the state.
Total rubbish. The basis of the morality of atheists is the moral judgement of individual atheists.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The basis of the morality of atheists is the moral judgement of individual atheists.
Talk about rubbish. No civilization predicated upon individual moral authority has any hope of survival. That is a scientific fact which you could easily observe if you ever managed to get your head out of your ass. The only possible source of moral authority in an ahteistic society is the state. And the only way that can be achieved is by the eradication of religion altogether. And that is the mission the ahteists are trying to use the state to achieve.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
John Carson wrote:
The basis of the morality of atheists is the moral judgement of individual atheists.
Talk about rubbish. No civilization predicated upon individual moral authority has any hope of survival. That is a scientific fact which you could easily observe if you ever managed to get your head out of your ass. The only possible source of moral authority in an ahteistic society is the state. And the only way that can be achieved is by the eradication of religion altogether. And that is the mission the ahteists are trying to use the state to achieve.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
No civilization predicated upon individual moral authority has any hope of survival.
If you are saying that some shared morality is necessary for a civilisation, then I agree. However, that doesn't mean the morality orginates with the state. It more likely means that the state reflects and enforces the shared morality of its citizenry.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only possible source of moral authority in an ahteistic society is the state.
Bollocks. The state gets is morality from its citizens. -- modified at 23:47 Tuesday 3rd April, 2007
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
1. Evolution involved chance and natural selection. The latter is non-random.
And it all came from what? What is the origin of life? It can't be non-life. Life can't just spring into being and over the course of time become man (I don't care how many millions or trillions of years you want to give it). And where are the transitional species in the fossil record? This is neither here nor there. Whether or not evolution is in some way involved in our history does not shed any light whatsoever on whether or not God exists.
John Carson wrote:
2. Your argument from personal incredulity is of no value. The power of your imaginings is beside the point. What matters is the evidence and it overwhelmingly points to evolution.
Science in all its pomposity has failed to explain how life can simply "become" without there being an intelligent power behind it. Where did the big bang come from? Certainly not nothing. Does absolute origin of life and universe not puzzle you?
John Carson wrote:
and because of evidence contradicting the existence of some versions of God
Such as?
John Carson wrote:
Fundamentalist Christianity tells us that the universe was created ex nihilo less than 10,000 years ago. Mountains of scientific evidence show that to be nonsense. If you want to discuss the evidence for your version of God, tell us what that version is and what empirical predictions follow from that version.
If I believe God exists, why would the apparent age of the earth bother or confound me? Nobody knows whether the six day creation in Genesis is literal or not. But the bible teaches (and I believe) that God created time and is not himself subject to it. It also states that to God, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. The purported age of the earth doesn't concern me or challenge my faith.
John Carson wrote:
In order for evidence for or against God's existence to be possible, God's existence must have empirical implications. For evidence in favour of God's existence to be persuasive, those empircal implications need to be more than ex post rationalisation of observed facts. They need to be ex ante predictions that could turn out to be wrong but in fact turn out to be right. Fundamentalis
ibowler wrote:
And it all came from what? What is the origin of life? It can't be non-life.
Why not? From a scientific point of view, life is just an ongoing chemical process and there are plenty of ongoing chemical processes in the "non-life world".
ibowler wrote:
And where are the transitional species in the fossil record?
The fact that you ask that shows you are getting your information from religious ignorami. There are plenty of transitional species in the fossil record linking fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, non-flowering and flowering plants, whales and land dwelling mammals, apes and humans...
ibowler wrote:
Whether or not evolution is in some way involved in our history does not shed any light whatsoever on whether or not God exists.
I would agree that, even if evolution is false, then that is not a good reason to believe in God. However, there are competing explanations of origins and the strength of the evolutionary explanation does have a bearing on the persuasiveness of the Divine one.
ibowler wrote:
Science in all its pomposity has failed to explain how life can simply "become" without there being an intelligent power behind it. Where did the big bang come from? Certainly not nothing. Does absolute origin of life and universe not puzzle you?
As is usual among Christians, you obviously haven't given this much thought. Scientific knowledge is always incomplete (though not as incomplete as you suppose), but it is nevertheless extremely impressive. The contribution of religious thought to our understanding of origins etc. is, by contrast, exactly zero. No Christian I have ever encountered has claimed to understand how God created the universe or any living being. They have no understanding of any mechanism or process whereby it could be done. They can point to no evidence of divine action. They can give no explanation of where God came from or how he acquired his powers. The explanations of scientists are incomplete, but at least they exist. Christians have no explanations whatsoever. If you see bread rolls in a shop and wonder where they came from, then you can "explain" it by saying the magic fairies made them. No grown up should find such an explanation satisfactory. The religious explan
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But absolute fact has to be proven
So the roundness of the earth was not an absolute truth until it was proven to be so? Absolute truth is (by definition) true regardless of whether or not it has been proven. Now deteriming what truths are absolute is a different matter altogether
Ian
No it is. However, even with obvious truths it needs to be proven to most people, and the roundness of the earth at that time was in no way obvious to most. When dealing with God, things become infinitely more complex to prove and justly so.
"If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
ibowler wrote:
And it all came from what? What is the origin of life? It can't be non-life.
Why not? From a scientific point of view, life is just an ongoing chemical process and there are plenty of ongoing chemical processes in the "non-life world".
ibowler wrote:
And where are the transitional species in the fossil record?
The fact that you ask that shows you are getting your information from religious ignorami. There are plenty of transitional species in the fossil record linking fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, non-flowering and flowering plants, whales and land dwelling mammals, apes and humans...
ibowler wrote:
Whether or not evolution is in some way involved in our history does not shed any light whatsoever on whether or not God exists.
I would agree that, even if evolution is false, then that is not a good reason to believe in God. However, there are competing explanations of origins and the strength of the evolutionary explanation does have a bearing on the persuasiveness of the Divine one.
ibowler wrote:
Science in all its pomposity has failed to explain how life can simply "become" without there being an intelligent power behind it. Where did the big bang come from? Certainly not nothing. Does absolute origin of life and universe not puzzle you?
As is usual among Christians, you obviously haven't given this much thought. Scientific knowledge is always incomplete (though not as incomplete as you suppose), but it is nevertheless extremely impressive. The contribution of religious thought to our understanding of origins etc. is, by contrast, exactly zero. No Christian I have ever encountered has claimed to understand how God created the universe or any living being. They have no understanding of any mechanism or process whereby it could be done. They can point to no evidence of divine action. They can give no explanation of where God came from or how he acquired his powers. The explanations of scientists are incomplete, but at least they exist. Christians have no explanations whatsoever. If you see bread rolls in a shop and wonder where they came from, then you can "explain" it by saying the magic fairies made them. No grown up should find such an explanation satisfactory. The religious explan
John Carson wrote:
Why not? From a scientific point of view, life is just an ongoing chemical process and there are plenty of ongoing chemical processes in the "non-life world".
There must be an absolute origin, no? Where did it all begin?
John Carson wrote:
The fact that you ask that shows you are getting your information from religious ignorami. There are plenty of transitional species in the fossil record linking fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, non-flowering and flowering plants, whales and land dwelling mammals, apes and humans...
Even if there are these specimens as you suggest, doesn't the fossil record seem awefully sparse considering the stages of man's evolution that must have taken place?
John Carson wrote:
As is usual among Christians, you obviously haven't given this much thought.
Because I disagree with you?
John Carson wrote:
No Christian I have ever encountered has claimed to understand how God created the universe or any living being
And how should we know how God did it? Our beliefs begin and end with God.
John Carson wrote:
They can give no explanation of where God came from or how he acquired his powers
Where He came from? How could God come from anything? We believe God is self-existent, has always been and will always be. For us, it is a matter of faith. Science has never proven that God does not exist nor can it do so. We seek to understand because we believe, not the other way around. It is a different mode of operation and no doubt fodder for your mockery.
John Carson wrote:
Even if you happily accept that a "day" is not meant literally, there are still huge problems with the Genesis account. For example, the sequence is wrong. The earth and night and day are created on day 1, yet the sun and stars aren't created until day 4. Where was daylight coming from and how did the plants survive without the sun? Birds appear too early, before the land dwelling creatures. Further, the account in chapter 1 contradicts the account in chapter 2, and the discussion of the sky (an expanse between two bodies of water) is nonsensical.
So in order for God to have created the
-
John Carson wrote:
Why not? From a scientific point of view, life is just an ongoing chemical process and there are plenty of ongoing chemical processes in the "non-life world".
There must be an absolute origin, no? Where did it all begin?
John Carson wrote:
The fact that you ask that shows you are getting your information from religious ignorami. There are plenty of transitional species in the fossil record linking fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, non-flowering and flowering plants, whales and land dwelling mammals, apes and humans...
Even if there are these specimens as you suggest, doesn't the fossil record seem awefully sparse considering the stages of man's evolution that must have taken place?
John Carson wrote:
As is usual among Christians, you obviously haven't given this much thought.
Because I disagree with you?
John Carson wrote:
No Christian I have ever encountered has claimed to understand how God created the universe or any living being
And how should we know how God did it? Our beliefs begin and end with God.
John Carson wrote:
They can give no explanation of where God came from or how he acquired his powers
Where He came from? How could God come from anything? We believe God is self-existent, has always been and will always be. For us, it is a matter of faith. Science has never proven that God does not exist nor can it do so. We seek to understand because we believe, not the other way around. It is a different mode of operation and no doubt fodder for your mockery.
John Carson wrote:
Even if you happily accept that a "day" is not meant literally, there are still huge problems with the Genesis account. For example, the sequence is wrong. The earth and night and day are created on day 1, yet the sun and stars aren't created until day 4. Where was daylight coming from and how did the plants survive without the sun? Birds appear too early, before the land dwelling creatures. Further, the account in chapter 1 contradicts the account in chapter 2, and the discussion of the sky (an expanse between two bodies of water) is nonsensical.
So in order for God to have created the
ibowler wrote:
There must be an absolute origin, no? Where did it all begin?
Doesn't that apply to the 'God theory' as well? If God created all life etc. as, (by your statement), it cannot have come from nothing then who/what created God as by the same logic it/he/she also cannot have come from nothing, (as per your thinking - 'There must be an absolute origin...')
Rhys "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it" They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance." Terry Pratchett
-
John Carson wrote:
Why not? From a scientific point of view, life is just an ongoing chemical process and there are plenty of ongoing chemical processes in the "non-life world".
There must be an absolute origin, no? Where did it all begin?
John Carson wrote:
The fact that you ask that shows you are getting your information from religious ignorami. There are plenty of transitional species in the fossil record linking fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, non-flowering and flowering plants, whales and land dwelling mammals, apes and humans...
Even if there are these specimens as you suggest, doesn't the fossil record seem awefully sparse considering the stages of man's evolution that must have taken place?
John Carson wrote:
As is usual among Christians, you obviously haven't given this much thought.
Because I disagree with you?
John Carson wrote:
No Christian I have ever encountered has claimed to understand how God created the universe or any living being
And how should we know how God did it? Our beliefs begin and end with God.
John Carson wrote:
They can give no explanation of where God came from or how he acquired his powers
Where He came from? How could God come from anything? We believe God is self-existent, has always been and will always be. For us, it is a matter of faith. Science has never proven that God does not exist nor can it do so. We seek to understand because we believe, not the other way around. It is a different mode of operation and no doubt fodder for your mockery.
John Carson wrote:
Even if you happily accept that a "day" is not meant literally, there are still huge problems with the Genesis account. For example, the sequence is wrong. The earth and night and day are created on day 1, yet the sun and stars aren't created until day 4. Where was daylight coming from and how did the plants survive without the sun? Birds appear too early, before the land dwelling creatures. Further, the account in chapter 1 contradicts the account in chapter 2, and the discussion of the sky (an expanse between two bodies of water) is nonsensical.
So in order for God to have created the
ibowler wrote:
There must be an absolute origin, no? Where did it all begin?
Believing in God doesn't resolve that issue. Where did God come from? You may say God always existed. Likewise, some scientists argue that the universe has always existed either as matter or energy and that all that has happened is that its form has changed.
ibowler wrote:
Even if there are these specimens as you suggest, doesn't the fossil record seem awefully sparse considering the stages of man's evolution that must have taken place?
Fossilisation is a flukey process and we are talking about beings that lived many years ago. The fossil record should be sparse. In any event, if the fossil record shows evidence of evolution taking place, then that establishes that evolution "works" and it is natural to extrapolate from those cases where we can see it in operation to those where we can't.
ibowler wrote:
Because I disagree with you?
No, for the reason I proceeded to elaborate. You think that you have explained something when you posit an "explanation" that you have no understanding of (you can't describe the mechanism etc.) and for which there is no evidence. If you had thought it through, you would see that this is not an explanation in the scientific sense and hence cannot be offered in competition to scientific explanations.
ibowler wrote:
Where He came from? How could God come from anything? We believe God is self-existent, has always been and will always be.
1. Believing it doesn't make it so. 2. You can't have it both ways. You can't insist others explain where something came from if you won't play by the same rules yourself. If you want to claim God always existed, then you must accept as having the same logical status the claim of others that the universe (in some form) always existed.
ibowler wrote:
For us, it is a matter of faith.
Which is just a polite way of saying you believe something without having grounds for doing so.
ibowler wrote:
Science has never proven that God does not exist nor can it do so.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, science cannot pass judgement on matters unless those matters have empirical implications. Science has never p
-
ibowler wrote:
There must be an absolute origin, no? Where did it all begin?
Doesn't that apply to the 'God theory' as well? If God created all life etc. as, (by your statement), it cannot have come from nothing then who/what created God as by the same logic it/he/she also cannot have come from nothing, (as per your thinking - 'There must be an absolute origin...')
Rhys "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it" They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance." Terry Pratchett
I believe God has no beginning. If God was created, then there would be something greater than God, and what would that be? This is the only rational way to think about God. Anything less would imply that something is greater than God, which doesn't make sense. So, that explains my views on that matter.
Ian
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No civilization predicated upon individual moral authority has any hope of survival.
If you are saying that some shared morality is necessary for a civilisation, then I agree. However, that doesn't mean the morality orginates with the state. It more likely means that the state reflects and enforces the shared morality of its citizenry.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only possible source of moral authority in an ahteistic society is the state.
Bollocks. The state gets is morality from its citizens. -- modified at 23:47 Tuesday 3rd April, 2007
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The state gets is morality from its citizens
As long as they are atheists.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
John Carson wrote:
The state gets is morality from its citizens
As long as they are atheists.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
As long as they are atheists.
If the state is a secular democracy - everyone gets a vote on morality. If the state is a non-secular democracy - only the "chosen" religion gets a vote. How do you imagine that is fair?
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
As long as they are atheists.
If the state is a secular democracy - everyone gets a vote on morality. If the state is a non-secular democracy - only the "chosen" religion gets a vote. How do you imagine that is fair?
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
If the state is a non-secular democracy - only the "chosen" religion gets a vote.
But we are already living in a "non-secular" democracy. The collapse of separation of church and state is that the state has become proactively anti-religious. Anti-religion is the "chosen" orientation of the state. The contest is between two competing concepts of secularism - the traditioanl "freedom of religion" and the new age "freedom from religion". In a society that enforces freedom of religion, religion is allowed to take an active role in public life. Questions such as prayer in school, ten commandments, etc, are not settled by the central federal government, they are settled by the state and local governments. The federal government does nothing to limit or discourage the influence of religion within society. In a society that enforces freedom from religion, the central fedral state proactively protects those citizens who do not wish to interact with religion in any way. It purposefully limits the access religion has to public discourse and public influence. It views its mandate as being hostile to the influence of religion within society in order to ensure that no citizen ever be required to be exposed to someone else's religious POV.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
If the state is a non-secular democracy - only the "chosen" religion gets a vote.
But we are already living in a "non-secular" democracy. The collapse of separation of church and state is that the state has become proactively anti-religious. Anti-religion is the "chosen" orientation of the state. The contest is between two competing concepts of secularism - the traditioanl "freedom of religion" and the new age "freedom from religion". In a society that enforces freedom of religion, religion is allowed to take an active role in public life. Questions such as prayer in school, ten commandments, etc, are not settled by the central federal government, they are settled by the state and local governments. The federal government does nothing to limit or discourage the influence of religion within society. In a society that enforces freedom from religion, the central fedral state proactively protects those citizens who do not wish to interact with religion in any way. It purposefully limits the access religion has to public discourse and public influence. It views its mandate as being hostile to the influence of religion within society in order to ensure that no citizen ever be required to be exposed to someone else's religious POV.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
I wholeheartedly disagree with every single point you attempt to make. Prayer in school is really about prayer in PUBLIC schools. Ten Commandments is really about Ten Commandments in PUBLIC buildings. The separation of church and state means the state does not endorse any particular religion over another. Surely you can see the implications of the state (federal, state or local) endorsing Christianity over Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc... IMO - You're just being paranoid and fear a perceived loss of power.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
I wholeheartedly disagree with every single point you attempt to make. Prayer in school is really about prayer in PUBLIC schools. Ten Commandments is really about Ten Commandments in PUBLIC buildings. The separation of church and state means the state does not endorse any particular religion over another. Surely you can see the implications of the state (federal, state or local) endorsing Christianity over Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc... IMO - You're just being paranoid and fear a perceived loss of power.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
I'm not sure that was Stan's point. Prayer in school is about whether or not I can pray in school, or if I can get a group together to do so. No endorsement by any officials. Too much of the time, the answer to that is no. I'm glad that the US does not endorse any single faith. However, too often people will try to use separation of church and state as an excuse to actively attack things they do not like.
-
I'm not sure that was Stan's point. Prayer in school is about whether or not I can pray in school, or if I can get a group together to do so. No endorsement by any officials. Too much of the time, the answer to that is no. I'm glad that the US does not endorse any single faith. However, too often people will try to use separation of church and state as an excuse to actively attack things they do not like.
proftc wrote:
Prayer in school is about whether or not I can pray in school, or if I can get a group together to do so.
Nope, prayer in public schools is about whether individual students or groups of students must be given specific time away from studies specifically for prayer. Or whether all students are subjected to religious readings/writing as part of the school day (as in a morning prayer broadcast over an intercom or a public prayer before an athletic event).
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Likewise, the good doctor certainly isn't Jewish or Christian; most likely Islamic. Of course such a person isn't going to find evidence for something patently Jewish. *edit* oh, he's the chief archaeologist of Egypt? Come on, Bassam - you really think that's an unbiased opinion?
The proposition that there is no good evidence for the Jewish captivity and exodus is pretty standard among archaelogists, notwithstanding the mythology that lives on in Christian circles. It is interesting but unsurprising that you appear to be unaware of this. Perhaps Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman will have more credibility with you than Zahi Hawass. http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm[^]
John Carson
John, why would I believe someone with political and anti-religious motivation? While those 2 men you mention are of the Jewish race, judging by the book they wrote, they have an anti-religion, anti-god ax to grind. Of course they're not going to find evidence supporting God. Why should I believe them when you don't believe Christian and Judaic archaeologists that have found evidence contrary to that of Zahi Hawass?
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Passover: Do this in remembrance of Me The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
John, why would I believe someone with political and anti-religious motivation? While those 2 men you mention are of the Jewish race, judging by the book they wrote, they have an anti-religion, anti-god ax to grind. Of course they're not going to find evidence supporting God. Why should I believe them when you don't believe Christian and Judaic archaeologists that have found evidence contrary to that of Zahi Hawass?
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Passover: Do this in remembrance of Me The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
John, why would I believe someone with political and anti-religious motivation? While those 2 men you mention are of the Jewish race, judging by the book they wrote, they have an anti-religion, anti-god ax to grind. Of course they're not going to find evidence supporting God.
The fact that people aren't religious doesn't mean that they have an anti-religious axe to grind (just as religious people don't automatically have a pro-religious axe to grind). There is a lot of bias in people, but, particularly where professional scientists are concerned, there is also a lot of genuine seeking for the truth --- not least because scientists are always conscious that if their scientific standards slip, there are always people willing to pounce and point out their failings, causing a loss of reputation. Moreover, such a loss of reputation is far more damaging to a scholar than to, say, a politician where bias and a certain casualness with the facts are more or less expected. The view that each side of an argument has its own facts and no trust can be placed in anyone from the other side is both false and damaging. Below is a statement from Finkelstein and Silberman. While they are plainly not believers in the literal truth of the Old Testament, I don't think their remarks suggest they have an anti-religious axe to grind. http://www.bibleinterp.com/commentary/Finkelstein_Silberman022001.htm[^] The work of individual archaelogists may reasonably be viewed with scepticism. When a large majority favours a particular view, then they are probably right. My strong impression is that a large majority of professional archaeologists (as opposed to enthusiastic amateurs) believe that archaeological support for the Moses story is lacking. The best that supporters of the Moses story can offer is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" --- but it is if the search has been long enough and thorough enough. From a self-proclaimed moderate and a fierce critic of Finkelstein: http://www.fsmitha.com/review/r-dever.html[^]
-
Judah Himango wrote:
John, why would I believe someone with political and anti-religious motivation? While those 2 men you mention are of the Jewish race, judging by the book they wrote, they have an anti-religion, anti-god ax to grind. Of course they're not going to find evidence supporting God.
The fact that people aren't religious doesn't mean that they have an anti-religious axe to grind (just as religious people don't automatically have a pro-religious axe to grind). There is a lot of bias in people, but, particularly where professional scientists are concerned, there is also a lot of genuine seeking for the truth --- not least because scientists are always conscious that if their scientific standards slip, there are always people willing to pounce and point out their failings, causing a loss of reputation. Moreover, such a loss of reputation is far more damaging to a scholar than to, say, a politician where bias and a certain casualness with the facts are more or less expected. The view that each side of an argument has its own facts and no trust can be placed in anyone from the other side is both false and damaging. Below is a statement from Finkelstein and Silberman. While they are plainly not believers in the literal truth of the Old Testament, I don't think their remarks suggest they have an anti-religious axe to grind. http://www.bibleinterp.com/commentary/Finkelstein_Silberman022001.htm[^] The work of individual archaelogists may reasonably be viewed with scepticism. When a large majority favours a particular view, then they are probably right. My strong impression is that a large majority of professional archaeologists (as opposed to enthusiastic amateurs) believe that archaeological support for the Moses story is lacking. The best that supporters of the Moses story can offer is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" --- but it is if the search has been long enough and thorough enough. From a self-proclaimed moderate and a fierce critic of Finkelstein: http://www.fsmitha.com/review/r-dever.html[^]
John, they obviously are not believers in the OT, so why would they find anything going against their beliefs? If they ever did find anything, their first thought would be to discredit it. That's the problem right there: start out with a presupposition, then work to prove it, disproving and discrediting alternative views, interpretations, and evidence regardless. There is no change of opinion if evidence dictates it. This predisposition towards disproving anything religious has snowballed: a person who finds something supporting religion or an historical account found in the Bible is labeled an heretic and a pariah. Look up Simcha Jacobovici: he's been labelled a pariah and a false documenter because of his findings supporting Mosaic stories, and his findings that the Mosaic writings were written prior to 700 BC (he actually found some copies of the Tenakh dating further back than what Finkelstein would have you believe, IIRC). Then very recently, Jacobovici found a tomb he believes is the tomb of Jesus. Because such a tomb would disprove the New Testament, a whole host of atheists and agnostics jump behind this formerly labeled pariah, regardless of the authenticity of his evidence. It is, of course, no surprise Jacobovici found evidence supporting Moses but rejecting Jesus -- he's a Judaic Jew, after all. Likewise, I find it no surprise that Finkelstein and friends find evidence supporting their view, all the while discrediting other views and other evidence. That's what really bugs me. I realize not all scientists and not all atheists are this way, but I'm seeing it occur en masse. It really makes me question how unbiased this all is.
John Carson wrote:
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" --- but it is if the search has been long enough and thorough enough.
Ah man...don't go there. I'm tempted to post something about life coming from non-life. ;)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Passover: Do this in remembrance of Me The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango