Did the Red Sea Part?
-
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
-
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
Judah Himango wrote:
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.
I think this is a baseless slur. In the first case, "believers in the OT" is an ambiguous phrase. It is perfectly consistent with atheism to believe that there is some historical basis for the OT accounts, even if you reject the supernatural aspects. Indeed, essentially all archaeologists accept that there is some historical basis for the OT: they differ in the date at which they think the history starts and in how accurate they think the history is. Even if I were to accept that atheists won't acknowledge anything that threatens their atheism (which I don't), an atheist could happily accept that the Jews were captive in Egypt, for example, without feeling that their atheism was in any way threatened. Plenty of atheists (possibly a majority) except that Jesus was a historical figure, though they don't accept that he was the son of God. You apparently view atheists as completely lacking in integrity, devoid of an interest in the truth, and willing to deny any fact that even remotely supports a Christian viewpoint. That says more about you than it does about atheists.
Judah Himango wrote:
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).
It speaks volumes that you refer to a documentary producer as if such people are part of the serious intellectual discussion on these matters. They are not. They don't make "findings" at all. There is indeed a lively discussion among archaeologists regarding the date of the authorship of the OT and regarding the historicity of the biblical accounts of the kingdoms of David and Solomon. Contrary to what your prejudices would suggest, there are atheists/agnosistics on both sides of the debate. Finkelstein represents one side and some recent findings have damaged his case (then again, a paper I recently saw on carbon dating of some relics supported his chronology). Since, unlike you, I believe that professional archaeologists are basically interested in the truth, notwithstanding that they
-
Judah Himango wrote:
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.
I think this is a baseless slur. In the first case, "believers in the OT" is an ambiguous phrase. It is perfectly consistent with atheism to believe that there is some historical basis for the OT accounts, even if you reject the supernatural aspects. Indeed, essentially all archaeologists accept that there is some historical basis for the OT: they differ in the date at which they think the history starts and in how accurate they think the history is. Even if I were to accept that atheists won't acknowledge anything that threatens their atheism (which I don't), an atheist could happily accept that the Jews were captive in Egypt, for example, without feeling that their atheism was in any way threatened. Plenty of atheists (possibly a majority) except that Jesus was a historical figure, though they don't accept that he was the son of God. You apparently view atheists as completely lacking in integrity, devoid of an interest in the truth, and willing to deny any fact that even remotely supports a Christian viewpoint. That says more about you than it does about atheists.
Judah Himango wrote:
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).
It speaks volumes that you refer to a documentary producer as if such people are part of the serious intellectual discussion on these matters. They are not. They don't make "findings" at all. There is indeed a lively discussion among archaeologists regarding the date of the authorship of the OT and regarding the historicity of the biblical accounts of the kingdoms of David and Solomon. Contrary to what your prejudices would suggest, there are atheists/agnosistics on both sides of the debate. Finkelstein represents one side and some recent findings have damaged his case (then again, a paper I recently saw on carbon dating of some relics supported his chronology). Since, unlike you, I believe that professional archaeologists are basically interested in the truth, notwithstanding that they
John Carson wrote:
Feel free. There has been progress in elucidating possible paths from non-life to life in spite of the fact that hardly anyone has been working on it.
Actually, you're not far off here. They've apparently found a way to produce proteins from electrons, I think it was electons, anyway a search would get there. But they're getting close. Another group is working on producing a mini big bang too. I'm really interested in the results of that one.
This statement was never false.