The Bible's Buried Secrets

[stahrwe]

Stahrwe
The population remained stable over the 40 years. As for their diet, I will leave that to you to investigate or not.

DWill, Stahrwe believes that god sent the Israelites manna from the sky to eat… so they did not live off the land… making them simply gatherers…

Of course no self respecting historian or archeologist would propose such a thing without first finding evidence of the event… but stahrwe seems to think that this omission is a fundamental lack of biblical knowledge on their (and your) part.

Later

Here you not only demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the Bible but set up a logical contraction which made me smile.

The Bible says that manna fell from the sky, was to be gathered each morning, and consumed that day. Any manna kept back in an attempt to store it would rot. The only exception was on Fridays enough manna could be gathered for both Friday, and Saturday. Based on this statement, if manna was found to have been preserved it could be used to show that the Bible was wrong. The fact that there is no manna today proves the Bible is correct?

[Frank 013]

Stahrwe
Based on this statement, if manna was found to have been preserved it could be used to show that the Bible was wrong. The fact that there is no manna today proves the Bible is correct?

Lack of evidence “proves” something… That’s a laugh!

A lack of evidence in this case does support that version of the story… however it also supports (in equal measure) that the events are entirely mythological.

Considering that manna has never been seen falling from the sky by anyone alive today and neither is it possible by any process that has been witnessed and recorded, nor is its single recording considered a reliable text by any intellectual standard, the likelihood of this event having actually happened is improbable … at best.

Nothing has been “proved” by the lack of evidence.

Later

[stahrwe]

Stahrwe
Based on this statement, if manna was found to have been preserved it could be used to show that the Bible was wrong. The fact that there is no manna today proves the Bible is correct?

Lack of evidence “proves” something… That’s a laugh!

A lack of evidence in this case does support that version of the story… however it also supports (in equal measure) that the events are entirely mythological.

You missed the point, that is why I ended with a ?. I was calling attention to your inartfully structured argument.

[Interbane]

As for arrogance, how about this:

Chris oconnor wrote:
]I really don't know what to do about this situation. It isn't so cut and dry as some of you would like to think. I agree that statements like this "We are all blessed to live under grace" are embarrassing and will drive away bright people. I have to think about this. This is tough. Atheism drives away the masses, while religion drives away the intellectuals.

What is arrogant about Chris' statement? It's a truthful observation.

Dawkins is known for his arrogance and takes pride in his arrogance.

Support that claim for me. Let's see your bias. Use the video with Tyson so I can point out what you're misunderstanding.

I was calling attention to your inartfully structured argument.

Since when are you able to see the structure of someone's arguments? What is the structure of Frank's, and why is it inartful? I'm calling your bluff, you still only see the words and paragraphs, and none of the logical structure.

[stahrwe]

As for arrogance, how about this:

Chris oconnor wrote:
]I really don't know what to do about this situation. It isn't so cut and dry as some of you would like to think. I agree that statements like this "We are all blessed to live under grace" are embarrassing and will drive away bright people. I have to think about this. This is tough. Atheism drives away the masses, while religion drives away the intellectuals.

What is arrogant about Chris' statement? It's a truthful observation.

Why is Squelch no longer posting? It was pretty obious that he was an intelligent person.

Dawkins is known for his arrogance and takes pride in his arrogance.

Support that claim for me. Let's see your bias. Use the video with Tyson so I can point out what you're misunderstanding.

Would you like to frame this in the form of another challenge?

I was calling attention to your inartfully structured argument.

Since when are you able to see the structure of someone's arguments? What is the structure of Frank's, and why is it inartful? I'm calling your bluff, you still only see the words and paragraphs, and none of the logical structure.[/quote]

How about this one as a new challenge?

[stahrwe]

Support that claim for me. Let's see your bias. Use the video with Tyson so I can point out what you're misunderstanding.

In point of fact, it was not my bias which calls Dawkins out for his arrogance; I merely googled the phrase and reported what I found. Here is one hit:

Is Richard Dawkins Arrogant? Ridicule, Passion And The New Atheists

By AJITA KAMAL - NIRMUKTA

Added: Saturday, 10 April 2010 at 7:00 PM
Thanks to Bala for the link.

You have probably heard the claim that Dawkins is arrogant. Usually this claim is directed at him from believers. But ever so often one hears it from other freethinkers, in the context of representing science and reason. The claim often is that Dawkins arrogance is actually counter-productive to the cause. Here is the video that has been quoted multiple times to make the case: [If you care to you may google 'tyson and dawkins video', or follow the link provided below but I am not going to post the video as I continue to object to them.]

Most people who hear Dawkins say the words F#@$ Off let their minds go blank as to the context. Multiple times I've had other atheists tell me that Dawkins sounds so mean when he dismisses people like that. But Dawkins is quoting someone else here! To anyone actually paying attention, its clear that Dawkins quotes the editor of New Scientist, to actually make the opposite point- that he is not the worst. Yet those intent on criticizing him for his logical and yet undoubtedly sharp criticism of religion latch onto such video clips to justify their intuitive dislike of Dawkins himself.

But this is an issue that is greater than just Dawkins. This concerns the entire freethought movement. What kinds of strategies should we take up when promoting science, critical thinking, naturalism and atheism?

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/5414-i ... w-atheists

Of course there is a logical flaw in the above argument which is obvious to even a minor league logician like myself.

Challenge met? I guess that's not fair are you didn't agree to make it a challenge. Then again, it wouldn't have mattered.

I was calling attention to your inartfully structured argument.

Since when are you able to see the structure of someone's arguments? What is the structure of Frank's, and why is it inartful? I'm calling your bluff, you still only see the words and paragraphs, and none of the logical structure.

Considering that manna has never been seen falling from the sky by anyone alive today(this is true) and neither is it possible by any process that has been witnessed and recorded (this is not true. It was recorded Frank013 just chooses to dismiss it), nor is its single recording (here Frank013 contradicts the preceeding statement) considered a reliable text by any intellectual standard (again, by Frank013's bias), the likelihood of this event having actually happened is improbable (failure at so many levels. I just don't understand the hesitancy here. It reminds me of the Dawkins Atheist Bus where the sign says, "There Probably Is No God" Why not make the commitment?) at best.

Here is what Frank013 should have written: Considering that, as far as I know, manna has never been seen falling from the sky by anyone alive today, and I know of no process to generate and precitate manna, and further, because I reject the record of the Bible as being unreliable, I find it improbable that manna ever existed.

Short, concise and to the point.

[Frank 013]

Stahrwe
You missed the point, that is why I ended with a ?. I was calling attention to your inartfully structured argument.

Question mark or no, to even suggest the possibility that lack of evidence supports anything is beyond ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding of even the most basic logic.

Stahrwe
this is not true. It was recorded Frank013 just chooses to dismiss it

It has never been shown that the biblical passages are recordings of real events… so it is true unless you can prove otherwise.

Stahrwe
here Frank013 contradicts the preceding statement

actually your right… my bad… but since the biblical passages have never been shown to be actually historical I do not consider them to be recordings… I should have used the word “stories”.

Frank
nor is its single recording considered a reliable text by any intellectual standard

stahrwe
(again, by Frank013's bias)

This is not as biased a statement as you would like to think… it is the placement of all, questionable, anonymous, non-confirmed “stories” from history.

Frank
the likelihood of this event having actually happened is improbable

stahrwe
(failure at so many levels.

Actuall the above statement is totally true… unless you have evidence to show otherwise???

stahrwe
I just don't understand the hesitancy here. It reminds me of the Dawkins Atheist Bus where the sign says, "There Probably Is No God" Why not make the commitment

The reason atheists do not commit (even Dawkins) is because (as we have been saying), we admit that we cannot know everything. There is a chance (although terribly minuscule) that some of what you believe might be true… at least to some degree. And because we are not arrogant enough to make claims about things that we did not witness or cannot possibly know for sure. An intellectually honest person accepts this and leaves room for being wrong and for new evidence to be admitted.

Later

[Azrael]

Support that claim for me. Let's see your bias. Use the video with Tyson so I can point out what you're misunderstanding.

In point of fact, it was not my bias which calls Dawkins out for his arrogance; I merely googled the phrase and reported what I found. Here is one hit:

Is Richard Dawkins Arrogant? Ridicule, Passion And The New Atheists

By AJITA KAMAL - NIRMUKTA

Added: Saturday, 10 April 2010 at 7:00 PM
Thanks to Bala for the link.

You have probably heard the claim that Dawkins is arrogant. Usually this claim is directed at him from believers. But ever so often one hears it from other freethinkers, in the context of representing science and reason. The claim often is that Dawkins arrogance is actually counter-productive to the cause. Here is the video that has been quoted multiple times to make the case: [If you care to you may google 'tyson and dawkins video', or follow the link provided below but I am not going to post the video as I continue to object to them.]

Most people who hear Dawkins say the words F#@$ Off let their minds go blank as to the context. Multiple times I've had other atheists tell me that Dawkins sounds so mean when he dismisses people like that. But Dawkins is quoting someone else here! To anyone actually paying attention, its clear that Dawkins quotes the editor of New Scientist, to actually make the opposite point- that he is not the worst. Yet those intent on criticizing him for his logical and yet undoubtedly sharp criticism of religion latch onto such video clips to justify their intuitive dislike of Dawkins himself.

But this is an issue that is greater than just Dawkins. This concerns the entire freethought movement. What kinds of strategies should we take up when promoting science, critical thinking, naturalism and atheism?

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/5414-i ... w-atheists

Of course there is a logical flaw in the above argument which is obvious to even a minor league logician like myself.

Challenge met? I guess that's not fair are you didn't agree to make it a challenge. Then again, it wouldn't have mattered.

I was calling attention to your inartfully structured argument.

Since when are you able to see the structure of someone's arguments? What is the structure of Frank's, and why is it inartful? I'm calling your bluff, you still only see the words and paragraphs, and none of the logical structure.

Considering that manna has never been seen falling from the sky by anyone alive today(this is true) and neither is it possible by any process that has been witnessed and recorded (this is not true. It was recorded Frank013 just chooses to dismiss it), nor is its single recording (here Frank013 contradicts the preceeding statement) considered a reliable text by any intellectual standard (again, by Frank013's bias), the likelihood of this event having actually happened is improbable (failure at so many levels. I just don't understand the hesitancy here. It reminds me of the Dawkins Atheist Bus where the sign says, "There Probably Is No God" Why not make the commitment?) at best.

Here is what Frank013 should have written: Considering that, as far as I know, manna has never been seen falling from the sky by anyone alive today, and I know of no process to generate and precitate manna, and further, because I reject the record of the Bible as being unreliable, I find it improbable that manna ever existed.

Short, concise and to the point.

I know of no process to generate and precitate manna,

You may not but it exists. Its called Mannitol its a form of sugar alcohol its low in sucrose so the body does not digest it as well and burns it up. Its often put in gum and even laxiatives thats the reason a big spoon full of the stuff will have you pooping through a screen door and you won't hit the screen either! There are other forms of them as well, Isomalt which is the sugar used to create sugar creations like you see on food network...

[stahrwe]

You may not but it exists. Its called Mannitol its a form of sugar alcohol its low in sucrose so the body does not digest it as well and burns it up. Its often put in gum and even laxiatives thats the reason a big spoon full of the stuff will have you pooping through a screen door and you won't hit the screen either! There are other forms of them as well, Isomalt which is the sugar used to create sugar creations like you see on food network...

The Truth Be Known you have provided supporting evidence for me. According to Wikipedia's entry for mannitol, "called manna after their resemblance to the Biblical food."

Wikipedia does not qualify it as the 'supposed Biblical food', or 'the substance reported in the Bible Book of Exodus'. The author of the Wikipedia article reports the resemblance to manna as a factual statement which indicates that manna is presented as a real substance. Thanks for the information and support.

[Interbane]

Why is Squelch no longer posting? It was pretty obious that he was an intelligent person.

What does this have to do with arrogance?

Would you like to frame this in the form of another challenge?

I already did, stop being redundant.

How about this one as a new challenge?

Absolutely. Structure Frank's arguments then point to where it lacks "artfulness".

neither is it possible by any process that has been witnessed and recorded (this is not true. It was recorded Frank013 just chooses to dismiss it), nor is its single recording (here Frank013 contradicts the preceeding statement)

Frank doesn't contradict himself. Reread what he wrote.

The author of the Wikipedia article reports the resemblance to manna as a factual statement which indicates that manna is presented as a real substance.

Of course it was real. It fell from the sky and fed millions. Der, it isn't entirely impossible, which means it definitely happened!!!