Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
04-04-2019, 22:47   #76
Capt'n Midnight
00:00
 
Capt'n Midnight's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wtf ? View Post
They could hardly whip out a biro and quote JC word for word could they ? It was hammers,chisels and a nice flat bit of stone back then so shorthand was out of the question too. I think I have been sold a pup all along.....?
They could have used a tablet and a stylus.

Cuneiform has been around for over five thousand years. So contemporal with Adam or Seth.




Ogham and runes used alphabets better suited to incisions or scratches.

Stuff has been scratched onto shells for the last 430,000 years so it's not even a human thing.
Capt'n Midnight is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
04-04-2019, 23:12   #77
AllForIt
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 4,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Oh we are, but after years and years of asking intelligently for any evidence for the claims the theists espouse, "we" have decided to dumb it down a lot to see if we get any better results from them You know, in the atheist hive mind and all.

Alas no matter how much I dilute it down for them, or how wide a net I cast for the evidence..... I have yet to get a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to support the claim that our existence is due to the machinations of an intelligent and intentional non-human agent.

A claim that you would think would be a pretty much first step low bar to open up theist discussion with. It being.... well.... pretty much the whole foundation of their thought process and world view.

But nah, nadda comes back. Dey gotz nuttin. They just need to get hip to that fact. "We" certainly have. They just need to catch up
I don't believe that there is a God.

However I still have the problem about how life became so sophisticated all by itself from basic building blocks.

If it is explained as a process of evolution then fine but I still have to ask myself how evolution came about all by itself.

I still have to ask myself why is it that it is not the case that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever and how instead there is something. I don't get how something can make itself. Maybe there will be a scientific explanation for this one day but I doubt it will be explained in my lifetime.
AllForIt is offline  
Thanks from:
04-04-2019, 23:15   #78
Wtf ?
Banned
 
Wtf ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by M5 View Post
Im guessing history was not your forte?
Enlighten me...OP back in the house.......
Wtf ? is offline  
04-04-2019, 23:18   #79
Wtf ?
Banned
 
Wtf ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah Cold Form View Post
MAtthew, John and possibly mark ( for parts) were eyewitnesses.
Luke spoke to eyewitnesses.

James and jude(the brothers of Jesus wrote a letter each. Peter(an eyewitness) wrote 2 letters. Paul wrote most of the rest. Hebrews we was anonymous but accepted as part of the new testament.
The Old testament was written by an Egyptian prince(former slave). Shepherd's, royal advisors and a host of others.
Sounds like a a speech at the Oscars...
Wtf ? is offline  
04-04-2019, 23:22   #80
Wtf ?
Banned
 
Wtf ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight View Post
They could have used a tablet and a stylus.

Cuneiform has been around for over five thousand years. So contemporal with Adam or Seth.




Ogham and runes used alphabets better suited to incisions or scratches.

Stuff has been scratched onto shells for the last 430,000 years so it's not even a human thing.
lol !
Wtf ? is offline  
Advertisement
04-04-2019, 23:31   #81
Odhinn
Registered User
 
Odhinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 5,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wtf ? View Post
Enlighten me...OP back in the house.......



It started to be compiled (the old testament part) in roughly 800 BC/BCE, the driving notion being to define Judaism and its practices.


I recommend the very readable
"The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts"



https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-Unear...y&sr=8-1-fkmr2
Odhinn is online now  
(3) thanks from:
05-04-2019, 00:09   #82
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 6,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wtf ? View Post
Enlighten me...OP back in the house.......
Ok

Quote:
They could hardly whip out a biro and quote JC word for word could they ?
No. They didn’t have biros. They had other ways of writing. Like we do.

Quote:
It was hammers,chisels and a nice flat bit of stone back then
This was the Roman era. Writing was on wood, wax tablets but most importantly ink on parchment or papyrus - a technology thousands of years old by then.

Quote:
so shorthand was out of the question too.
That doesn’t even follow.

Quote:
I think I have been sold a pup all along.....?
You were definitely sold a pup by the education system.
Franz Von Peppercorn is offline  
Thanks from:
05-04-2019, 00:33   #83
PARlance
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 16,190
Think the 10 Commandments threw you there OP.

They were on stone, no chisel though, God's finger apparently.
PARlance is offline  
05-04-2019, 13:57   #84
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franz Von Peppercorn View Post
I worked that out when I was eight. What’s embarrassing is how little this matters in 2019. Maybe Islam is a problem for the future but not now, the odd school in Birmingham aside. The mental energy for debunking logical fallacies and intellectual fads could be better used against some of the crazier ideas of right and left.
I can only speak for myself but one is not mutually exclusive with the other for me. I work to combat all kinds of unsubstantiated and harmful nonsense in our world where and when I can. Religion only a small aspect of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franz Von Peppercorn View Post
After all the op, who no doubt thinks he’s a genius, thinks that they were using stones to write on during the roman era. The modern atheist just ain’t all that.
Thankfully I see no reason to think the OP is representative of..... well anyone at all really..... least of all the "modern atheist" whatever that is

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllForIt View Post
If it is explained as a process of evolution then fine but I still have to ask myself how evolution came about all by itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllForIt View Post
I still have to ask myself why is it that it is not the case that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever and how instead there is something.
I think what is in play there is a perfectly natural human fallacy of "default" thinking which we are all prone to. So let me throw a curve ball and see if you enjoy thinking of it from the opposite direction for awhile.

Whatever way our brain works, we assume that "nothing" is the default and therefore "something" has to be explained. That no evolution has to be the default so how it came about needs to be explained.

So I wonder if a useful suggest is that instead of asking why is there evolution rather than not, or something rather than nothing........ that you are accepting "nothing" and "not" as the defaults in the first place.

Ask yourself why should there be nothing rather than something? Why can something not be the default? You think it is difficult to answer why there is something rather than nothing. Try answering why you think there should be nothing!

It'll fry your noodle when you get into it I can not come up with a single reason whatsoever why there should actually be nothing. And I've tried.
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
05-04-2019, 15:24   #85
Man Vs ManUre
Registered User
 
Man Vs ManUre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,621
If Mcgregor wrote the Bible then khabib wrote the Koran.
Man Vs ManUre is offline  
05-04-2019, 15:35   #86
Fourier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,497
Short version.

Ezra the scribe (or people working for him) around 450s BC gathered older oral tales and combined them with secular histories, the writings of prophets and priestly ritual and theological texts to produce the core of the Old Testament. This was so that there was a "standard" version of the Hebrew faith, something Persians expected of all their vassal people. The older oral tales are mostly from a time Israel was polythestic or some later ones from when it was mostly monolatric. The prophets were included because they were thought to explain why Israel had been invaded by Babylon. The priestly stuff was there to explain how to worship God.

Some works of literature and fables with a moral were added later around the 200s BC to complete the Old Testament.

The New Testament is basically biographies of Jesus from community memories of his life (four different communities), combined with letters (real and faked) of Paul since he was held in high regard and finally a single prophecy given by a Greek Christian on Patmos that was felt to have legitimacy by most of the Christian community.

Last edited by Fourier; 05-04-2019 at 15:38.
Fourier is offline  
Thanks from:
06-04-2019, 04:42   #87
AllForIt
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 4,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post

I think what is in play there is a perfectly natural human fallacy of "default" thinking which we are all prone to. So let me throw a curve ball and see if you enjoy thinking of it from the opposite direction for awhile.

Whatever way our brain works, we assume that "nothing" is the default and therefore "something" has to be explained. That no evolution has to be the default so how it came about needs to be explained.

So I wonder if a useful suggest is that instead of asking why is there evolution rather than not, or something rather than nothing........ that you are accepting "nothing" and "not" as the defaults in the first place.

Ask yourself why should there be nothing rather than something? Why can something not be the default? You think it is difficult to answer why there is something rather than nothing. Try answering why you think there should be nothing!

It'll fry your noodle when you get into it I can not come up with a single reason whatsoever why there should actually be nothing. And I've tried.
You can fry my noodles all you like, I don't mind. I'd enjoy it actually.

But from what I get you are saying is that my mind is 'limited' in my thinking. That I feel there is a concept of something or nothing, a binary issue? And that perhaps it's not that simple when it comes to physics? And that maybe something is the 'default'.

You might be surprised but I've thought your same thoughts on the issues myself. I've thought to myself 'well maybe it's impossible for there to be nothing' because even nothing is something. If there were a vast empty nothingness then that's something even though it's nothing.

So I can get why there can't be nothing (somewhat) but then I'm still left with the problem about how atoms organized themselves into my brain such that I'm thinking about atoms that make up my brain.

Fry my noodles on that one all you like, I'd love to have a theory on it anyway that doesn't involve a creator.

Last edited by AllForIt; 06-04-2019 at 04:48.
AllForIt is offline  
06-04-2019, 04:53   #88
BeerWolf
Registered User
 
BeerWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,892
Word of mouth... which we all know is prone to being altered by gross exaggeration, and in a time of ignorance people would believe.

Hell, even now people believe what the mass media feeds them right off the bat...
BeerWolf is offline  
06-04-2019, 06:49   #89
kneemos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 18,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllForIt View Post
You can fry my noodles all you like, I don't mind. I'd enjoy it actually.

But from what I get you are saying is that my mind is 'limited' in my thinking. That I feel there is a concept of something or nothing, a binary issue? And that perhaps it's not that simple when it comes to physics? And that maybe something is the 'default'.

You might be surprised but I've thought your same thoughts on the issues myself. I've thought to myself 'well maybe it's impossible for there to be nothing' because even nothing is something. If there were a vast empty nothingness then that's something even though it's nothing.

So I can get why there can't be nothing (somewhat) but then I'm still left with the problem about how atoms organized themselves into my brain such that I'm thinking about atoms that make up my brain.

Fry my noodles on that one all you like, I'd love to have a theory on it anyway that doesn't involve a creator.

I thought you were going down the double slit experiment there for a minute,the creator can be several different things.

Or even Shrodinger's cat.
kneemos is offline  
06-04-2019, 07:33   #90
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllForIt View Post
But from what I get you are saying is that my mind is 'limited' in my thinking.
Not you. All of us. We are evolved in that exact thinking. We start projects with nothing and get something. We are born with nothing and acquire things. We start with no knowledge, we learn things.

Throughout evolution and throughout our entire lives we are instilled with this "nothing to something" way of thinking. It is second nature to us and seems to get ramified in many ways every day of our lives.

So when we think of existence itself, we take that baggage with us. We assume nothing, then seek to explain something.

My point is just to suggest this is not valid at all. That there is no reason to expect nothing, and therefore no reason the something demands explanation. We can not at all explain why it is nothing existing that would not actually be what requires explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllForIt View Post
I'm still left with the problem about how atoms organized themselves into my brain such that I'm thinking about atoms that make up my brain.
This is essentially the same thing as above though. A good question in reverse is why SHOULDNT the atoms do this? You are sitting there thinking about it because that IS what atoms do. Perhaps there is nothing remarkable about it, other than it seems remarkable to us! But even the most simple mathematical equations can have complex results. So really I find it remarkable and wholly mundane at the same time.

It is basically the anthropic principle. And it requires no external creator at all. Nor would one be useful given it only shifts the same questions TO that creator. If we have to explain why we are able to think and exist.... then postulating a creator only means we then have to explain why IT can think and exist. So a creator explains nothing. Just pushes the same question up the chain.

And all I suggest is that perhaps it is the wrong question in the first place. Regardless of where one places it.
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
Thanks from:
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search