Page 21 of 68 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 677

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #201
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,133
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,610
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post

    The bible is "awash" with emphasis to keep things CLEAN, the mind and body etc... Tons of verses to do with washing garments for ceremonial and everyday living purposes. Being among the dead at burials (being unclean) to be clean from or never eating things of the deep sea that feed off dead things, digging poop holes and covering them rather than throwing out human-waste in the streets, centuries later in Europe, .... which is ironic, since there was (and still exists) in England an earlier Roman toilets area with sewage and water drainage sytems .. just laying there for centuries while everyone else is throwing out waste in the streets ,which does suggest a little going backwards in this regard to hygiene.

    I'm not even comparing or equating the biblical era to current times but I am however differentiating the image of the middle-ages, that atheists "love" to use, when portraying the times of the bible, who were more advanced in hygiene than those of the middle-ages. Many of the arguments used by atheists use the middle-ages portrayal template . which may seem useful for the argument but is really misleading and erroneous.



    Well yes of course, no disputing that, thats not what I arguing against.

    One of the objections to Lister's and Pasteur's work, an obstacle to better health practices was that God never mentioned germs in the Bible. Never mentioned changing the sheets between patients. Don't boil a kid in the mom's milk, he had time to mention that, and don't have sex during a woman's period, but not a word about the minimum temoerature to boil surgical knives at, or the lowest temp to cook meat....
    Biblical times were cleaner than the times centuries later, is all I was highlighting. A different portrayal than the usual dark-ages era. Like: Where does it say in the bible that a unicorn has a spike in a horses head ? You'll find that image appears centuries later like all the magic tales.


    You are wrong. Biblical times were not cleaner than the early middle ages, and certainly not cleaner than the late middle ages.

    The Romans had a fetish for bathing, but not for hygiene as we understand it today - the water in their baths was changed infrequently, and used by a lot of people. Ritual purification and cleanliness was in no way what we today would recognize as 'clean'. There was no disinfectant, no bleach (except for treating cloth), no soap. No understanding of the difference between a plate that had held raw chicken and then been wiped with a cold damp cloth, and the same plate that had been cleaned in hot water.

    And as a result, people in the biblical era died young, in huge numbers, from sepsis, food poisoning, and transmissible diseases of all kinds. This continued into the middle ages, but didn't get worse.
    Last edited by bilby; 05-21-2019 at 05:18 AM.

  2. Top | #202
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,935
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    22
    I added a few more lines in my quote before you posted


    The bible is "awash" with emphasis to keep things CLEAN, the mind and body etc... Tons of verses to do with washing garments for ceremonial and everyday living purposes. Being among the dead at burials (being unclean) to be clean from or never eating things of the deep sea that feed off dead things, digging poop holes and covering them rather than throwing out human-waste in the streets, centuries later in Europe, .... which is ironic, since there was (and still exists) in England an earlier Roman toilets area with sewage and water drainage sytems .. just laying there for centuries while everyone else is throwing out waste in the streets ,which does suggest a little going backwards in this regard to hygiene.
    They understood the significance.

    Food poisoning and disease you get in every era, like erm.. today with newer diseases.

    (ok good you have the full quote)

  3. Top | #203
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,133
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,610
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    I added a few more lines in my quote before you posted


    The bible is "awash" with emphasis to keep things CLEAN, the mind and body etc... Tons of verses to do with washing garments for ceremonial and everyday living purposes. Being among the dead at burials (being unclean) to be clean from or never eating things of the deep sea that feed off dead things, digging poop holes and covering them rather than throwing out human-waste in the streets, centuries later in Europe, .... which is ironic, since there was (and still exists) in England an earlier Roman toilets area with sewage and water drainage sytems .. just laying there for centuries while everyone else is throwing out waste in the streets ,which does suggest a little going backwards in this regard to hygiene.
    You are still wrong.

    The reason for human waste being dumped in the streets in the late middle ages was that cities outgrew their infrastructure. People still wanted things to be clean; They just had no means to make it so, IN TOWNS AND CITIES. But unlike today, the VAST majority of people in the middle ages Europe DIDN'T live in towns or cities. They lived in villages and hamlets.

    The Romans had pretty good infrastructure in the wealthier parts of Rome; But you can bet that the slums of Rome, and of the provincial centres (such as Judea), were every bit as filthy as medieval towns. As long as the Consul and the wealthy merchants didn't have to tread in it, they didn't care too much what the state of the streets was. A trend which continued unchanged into the middle ages - the King of France never walked down shit-filled streets either. He had a staff to clean up ahead of his visits (and the sense to spend most of his time in a nice palace outside town).

    And Roman infrastructure was great in terms of water flow management; But they didn't have (or understand the need for) treatment plants. Those Roman toilets flowed straight into the Tiber - and the water from the river was used for washing and even drinking further downstream. The same was true in all Roman towns - the people downstream washed themselves in the diluted shit from the people upstream, because they had no choice.

  4. Top | #204
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,935
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    22
    Ok Bilby .. Anyway I'm going to retire for a bit and I haven't forgotten Atribs posts ...will continue.

  5. Top | #205
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,572
    Rep Power
    11
    Menstruation was considered unclean. There are 513 commandments pulled out of the OT, many bizzare/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

    http://www.womeninthescriptures.com/...man-to-be.html

    "And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean." (Lev. 15:9-20)

    These scriptures go on for thirteen more verses explaining all the ways women can be unclean during menstruation. In Leviticus 12 it explains how a woman is unclean after childbirth, and how she is doubly unclean after giving birth to a girl. It seems like the Bible is filled with examples of how a woman's body, especially the blood she sheds, is unclean. So unclean in fact, that just being around a woman who is bleeding can make you unclean.

  6. Top | #206
    Super Moderator Atheos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Heart of the Bible Belt
    Posts
    2,285
    Archived
    5,807
    Total Posts
    8,092
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post

    No atheist biblical scholars believe a magical or "divine" Jesus existed, so you're quite wrong. There are zero scholars for Magical/Divine Jesus.
    Agreed. There are lots of bunnies. None of them hide pastel-dyed chicken eggs on the 1st Sunday following the 1st full moon following the spring equinox. There was an historical St. Nicholas. There wasn't one who lives in a hidden workshop at the North Pole populated with elves who fabricate toys for him to deliver via his sleigh pulled by flying reindeer all over the world in a single night.

    And there may have been an historical person named Jesus who formed the original kernel of the cult that eventually grew and splintered into Christianity. But there wasn't one who walked on water and levitated magically into the sky never to be seen again. Jesus is just like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. The only difference is popularity which is fueled by the amount of money to be made by peddling this religious bunk.
    With a little bit of historical digging, so to speak, it was noticed that Santa Claus appeared much later than St. Nick. A merging of two images. Its good we seem to all know and agree with this,... as well as the bunnies coming about. (Those tales differing from the miracles storiy appearing right from the mentioning of Jesus .. and not added on later to the character.)

    You say magically rising in the sky,... I'd like to say instead : God sent an anti-gravity field (keeping with the times).
    Not that this has anything to do with the validity of your argument but "The name Santa Claus evolved from Nick’s Dutch nickname, Sinter Klaas, a shortened form of Sint Nikolaas (Dutch for Saint Nicholas). " I'll leave it to you to do your own googling if you care to extend that discussion.

    You are also incorrect about the developing legend of Jesus. We have plenty of evidence demonstrating that it does not take centuries for legendary development to occur. Far from it, legendary development normally happens very quickly. It did not take long for hundreds of apocryphal stories about George Washington to develop. It has taken much more effort to separate the apocryphal stories from the more accurate anecdotes from his life. Thus, while Washington did not hurl a coin across the Potomac, he did, evidently cross the Delaware with troops to effect a crucial surprise victory over forces in Trenton during the revolutionary war.

    The first writings about Jesus say absolutely nothing about miracles. The miracle narratives do not begin appearing until decades later, but it is evident that they proliferated quickly and competing versions of these stories ended up in the canon. An example is the otherwise inexplicable miracles of the loaves and fish. Separated by only a single chapter in GMark they have slightly different numbers but the stories are otherwise nearly identical, including the plot device of the disciples not knowing how they were going to feed all these people. If this stuff wasn't a collection of developing anecdotes you'd expect the disciples the 2nd time around to ask, "You gonna make with the loaves and fish miracle again?" But no. They were just as surprised the 2nd time as they were only a chapter earlier.

    It is also evident to those of us who are skeptics that as time passed believers felt compelled to fabricate stories of Jesus that demonstrated power over other areas that had legendarily been ascribed to other Greek and Roman gods. Thus he had to turn water into wine in the much later gospel of John to show that he was better than Dionysus who simply made wine and caused vineyards to be fertile. There is nothing noble about what GJohn claims is the first miracle Jesus performed. He was just showing off. But to christians of the era it was important to know their home-team god was more powerful than the competition.

  7. Top | #207
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    857
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,656
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post


    I should add that I don't actually expect you to do that, since you have been repeatedly called out for making up shit in the past, and have always dodged my questions. But the question has to be asked, so there it is. Show us that you are better at this than Mr. Max the cockatoo.
    Mine in bold is false ..now I'n not in the biz to call people out as fibbers, telling porkies, but I will take this as your mistake, you've said that to me once or twice before, you could point it out ...if it exists! I think you also tried that with Lion quite a few times.

    I don't recall dodging either.

    I'll do the rest of the post as underlined, in a bit, when I'm in the mood.
    I am not calling you a liar. I'm saying that you make vague, outlandish claims that have little connection to reality, and you never back up your claims with evidence. I suspect this is because you have a poor understanding of how reality works, and your arguments seem muddled and confused.

    You also frequently say that you will think about/research the subject and then come back to address the problems people have pointed out with your claims, but you almost never do that. For example, I am still waiting for you to explain why the Big Bang Theory should be considered unreliable, or why you believe God could be hiding in dark matter, or why you keep claiming that our universe might be designed since it apparently looks like a hologram universe. If you are interested, I will post links to this behavior.

  8. Top | #208
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,935
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    I am not calling you a liar. I'm saying that you make vague, outlandish claims that have little connection to reality, and you never back up your claims with evidence. I suspect this is because you have a poor understanding of how reality works, and your arguments seem muddled and confused.
    Ah yes so you keep saying. It seems even with my inferior posting skills, ( I am quite messy), perhaps people feel sorry for me, but still engage with me in discussions pretending they understand at least some of what I'm saying.

    You also frequently say that you will think about/research the subject and then come back to address the problems people have pointed out with your claims, but you almost never do that.
    Yes you are right there. I have to admit ..sometimes this happens ... but I should add a caveat and say : " I'll try if I can" or "if I have time" or "remind me" and make it clear, but thats all there was to it, it is not good practice, and ... it is good you mention it , which must be frustrating if someone is expecting an answer. I must be more thoughful here. There's no avoidance or dodging, I lose the passion of the discussion and forget where I left off ,if I haven't log in for a little while, or distracted to other post responses.



    If there's something left unanswered they usually say to the poster "You haven't addressed this issue" . Sometimes I log in and the thread has gone pages with discussions and I do think at times whether or not to go back and bring to the fore earlier discussions, not that it would be problematic but it may disturb the current flow on the thread. I just let things go .

    I was having a good discussion with Angra and still felt I needed to reply to the last post but there were other conversations on that thread that went ahead .. I thought we had covered enough of that particular topic and I just left it.

    Actually ..i ts best I not say anything at all like, I'll get back to you . A new lesson learned!

    For example, I am still waiting for you to explain why the Big Bang Theory should be considered unreliable, or why you believe God could be hiding in dark matter, or why you keep claiming that our universe might be designed since it apparently looks like a hologram universe. If you are interested, I will post links to this behavior.
    I think I remember now, you "asserted " I said something like that and I replied I was using dark matter as an analogy "only" and I had no problems with the Big bang theory, when you asked what I found wrong with it . I think I remember my last post on that issue ( including something of my mental state) you raised up .
    Last edited by Learner; 05-22-2019 at 01:14 AM. Reason: tidying

  9. Top | #209
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,935
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post


    Not that this has anything to do with the validity of your argument but "The name Santa Claus evolved from Nick’s Dutch nickname, Sinter Klaas, a shortened form of Sint Nikolaas (Dutch for Saint Nicholas). " I'll leave it to you to do your own googling if you care to extend that discussion.
    You must quickly tell the others not to say Jesus is as real as Santa Claus,.

  10. Top | #210
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,133
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,610
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post


    Not that this has anything to do with the validity of your argument but "The name Santa Claus evolved from Nick’s Dutch nickname, Sinter Klaas, a shortened form of Sint Nikolaas (Dutch for Saint Nicholas). " I'll leave it to you to do your own googling if you care to extend that discussion.
    You must quickly tell the others not to say Jesus is as real as Santa Claus,.
    Jesus might well be as real as Santa Claus. In both cases, there may be a real person who is the nucleus of the myth; But the modern mythical individual is pure fiction. Nobody has ever made toys at the North Pole, and nobody has ever come back from being dead.

    Of course, it's possible that (unlike Santa) there was no one person who formed the foundation of the Jesus myth, in which case Jesus is less real than Santa Claus. But that doesn't change the fact that any adult who believes in either should be deeply embarrassed at their naivety.

Similar Threads

  1. Theological Fine Tuning
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum General Religion
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 09:33 AM
  2. fine tuning argument
    By BH in forum Existence of God(s)
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 05-06-2018, 05:45 PM
  3. How would you debate this argument
    By NobleSavage in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 10-04-2014, 07:12 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-29-2014, 10:05 PM
  5. The argument for eating dog
    By Potoooooooo in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-26-2014, 07:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •