responding to common objections to bible part 7

[total relism]

Yes, thank you for making it clear how little you understand.

Kadagar's original claim was that P was true if A, B or C was present. You disproved B, and claim that this disproves P(strawman). When he then responds by expanding on C, you make a false claim that he is moving the goalposts.

HT, please read entire posts and my responses. I showed B [uneducated and scientific knowledge]not to be true as you admitted, i never disagreed with him on C [religiously brainwashed] I said [read my post to him] i agree fully and will even provide many examples of such [evolutionist]. A [one have to be insane] was a completely baseless false opinion that i did not think needed responding to. So i never attack anything that was not his position as you claim [straw man] I simply refuted one, agreed with one, and ignored another baseless claim that is easily false. Unless of course you followed his moving the goal post in the next email, and think i was saying i refuted his second email with responce below that he said

"Try making an actual scientific peer revised report on the matter? It has been tried, you know. In all manners of ways.
It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily..."

if that is the case i earlier said

"i could not agree more, i will post debates between phd vs phd when i do my thread. We will see who gets to laugh more."

also i will respond/refute the rest of his claim when the thread topic has to do with comment.

[HoreTore]

HT, please read entire posts and my responses. I showed B [uneducated and scientific knowledge]not to be true as you admitted, i never disagreed with him on C [religiously brainwashed] I said [read my post to him] i agree fully and will even provide many examples of such [evolutionist]. A [one have to be insane] was a completely baseless false opinion that i did not think needed responding to. So i never attack anything that was not his position as you claim [straw man] I simply refuted one, agreed with one, and ignored another baseless claim that is easily false. Unless of course you followed his moving the goal post in the next email, and think i was saying i refuted his second email with responce below that he said

First off: stop believing other people do not read the relevant posts they are responding to.

The point he was maintaining in his second post, which you claim was a case of "moving the goalpost", was in defense of the actual point he made in his first point: that in order to believe the bible explains physics, you have to be either a, b or c. You responded with the intent of countering his point, and you can't do that by simply refuting one of the three assumptions; you have to take all three down for Kadagar's statement to be shown false.

Your post thus remains a strawman. Or, it could be simply irrelevant and not an argument at all. In either case, Kadagar's point that you have to be insane, uneduated or religiously brainwashed to believe the bible explains physics still stands, and you have offered nothing to counter it.

I also find it hilarious how you apparently rate "debates of phd vs phd" to be a better source of knowledge than, you know, actual sources of knowledge. Like a book. A debate is a show, books are for knowledge.

And no, creation scientists are not published in scientific journals. Their "theories" are lunacy, and are not included in journals dealing with reality.

do they have hundreds of years in advance?

Now looks who's moving the goalposts? How cute.



By the way, my post on the question of Herod and the census was taken directly from a statement from your OP, yet you have not responded to it. I'm not waiting in anticipation, given that you do not have the knowledge required to attempt to counter it.

[Empire*Of*Media]

horeTore
im not offending you friend ........but you even justify yourself by somethings you think its "Reasonable"? why you always think your the right?! why you always think that those that dont accept your believes are fools and the wrong and must be offensed?!
as Brenus too! but your much better than him his far far worse.

[Pannonian]

horeTore
im not offending you friend ........but you even justify yourself by somethings you think its "Reasonable"? why you always think your the right?! why you always think that those that dont accept your believes are fools and the wrong and must be offensed?!
as Brenus too! but your much better than him his far far worse.

Because he knows about Roman history and the other bloke doesn't? It's not a matter of ethics, but knowledge, and TR has demonstrated a palpable lack of. If I say that 2+2=4 and the other bloke says it's something else, it doesn't matter what his holy book says or how much you sympathise with him, I'm still going to be right and the other bloke who says otherwise is still going to be wrong.

[Brenus]

“as Brenus too! but your much better than him his far far worse.” I don’t intervene anymore in TR posts as they stop to make me laugh.
Now, as you spoke of me: I don’t “believe”. I came always with facts. Well, I do believe in few things (Justice, Freedom, and others concepts). But when some (as you did few time) come with absolutely no evidences at all, about subjects you have absolutely no clue (i.e. Forrisson being an historian in the WW2 and Holocaust), or me being a US citizen, I have to react, When you pick all revisionist theories you can find in Internet (none of them given a single little proof of what they implies (never came once with invoices testimonies, plans or witnesses), I challenged you. You are the one who went for insults and other smoke screen tactic in order to deflect the need of answers.

Like TR in the religious domains, you carefully avoid facts. You are not alone to do this.
Have to go shopping, will come back on the subject.

[total relism]

First off: stop believing other people do not read the relevant posts they are responding to.

The point he was maintaining in his second post, which you claim was a case of "moving the goalpost", was in defense of the actual point he made in his first point: that in order to believe the bible explains physics, you have to be either a, b or c. You responded with the intent of countering his point, and you can't do that by simply refuting one of the three assumptions; you have to take all three down for Kadagar's statement to be shown false.

Your post thus remains a strawman. Or, it could be simply irrelevant and not an argument at all. In either case, Kadagar's point that you have to be insane, uneduated or religiously brainwashed to believe the bible explains physics still stands, and you have offered nothing to counter it.

I also find it hilarious how you apparently rate "debates of phd vs phd" to be a better source of knowledge than, you know, actual sources of knowledge. Like a book. A debate is a show, books are for knowledge.

And no, creation scientists are not published in scientific journals. Their "theories" are lunacy, and are not included in journals dealing with reality.



Now looks who's moving the goalposts? How cute.



By the way, my post on the question of Herod and the census was taken directly from a statement from your OP, yet you have not responded to it. I'm not waiting in anticipation, given that you do not have the knowledge required to attempt to counter it.

first off [lol] i said maybe this is why you thought were my strawman was[not reading my two post just one].


on his 3 points, as i said i refuted 1, agree with one [no reason to refute what i agree with him on] and third was competeley baseless and clearly false as [that they are insane] that was baseless opinion that he provided no evidence for, so deserves no response. If i were to answer or not it still would not be what you claim a strawman. Not to mention not one did he support. he claimed, all three however will as i have been saying, be handled when brought up on thread of topic.


debates vs books
i will be providing both, both are sources of knowledge despite your claim. there is much that can be learned from both. I think debates are great [as do creationist you will see why if you watch] generally creation views are censored, and evolution only taught. We are taught many things prove evolution and disprove creation and there is great evidence for evolution. What i said i would post debates for is if you remember laughing, creationist will laugh in debates at what evolutionist present when they can be challenged, and when there views are attacked. Because evolutionist are so confident and teach such a way, that when they get there butts kicked, its very funny. So i was simply saying that it is creationist that laugh at evolutionist when challenged, not the other way around as claimed in earlier post.


creationist peer review
not only is your statement demonstrable false, but commits multiply logic fallacies in your wording. These however will have to wait when you confidently assert them on the creation evolution thread.



goalpost moved?
please provide? do you mean that they must be clearly about advances foretelling? I have maintained from beginning this is the case and what makes bible unique. Not to mention your missing another big qualifier [ i wont give away to help you] ,just another example of you not reading post and coming with your opinion/conclusion before reading posts. So just how do you say i moved posts?

Because he knows about Roman history and the other bloke doesn't? It's not a matter of ethics, but knowledge, and TR has demonstrated a palpable lack of. If I say that 2+2=4 and the other bloke says it's something else, it doesn't matter what his holy book says or how much you sympathise with him, I'm still going to be right and the other bloke who says otherwise is still going to be wrong.

please provide a specific example related to anything said on any of my threads.

Like TR in the religious domains, you carefully avoid facts. You are not alone to do this.
.

please provide one specific fact i avoid as you claimed. i will be keeping your quote above for later thread on creation vs evolution to compare and see who does avoid facts. I will ask for any one example from you that i ignore, than i will provide for you one you must ignore, than well keep score, as i said above creationist get to laugh most. Evolutionist so confident, never able to defend their faith, i say indoctrination is the reason.

[Brenus]

"one specific fact" Book of Gilgamesh, written before the Bible (Clay Tablets) and describing the Deluge (with several Gods). proving that the Bible is not written or even not from your god.
That should be enough.
By the way, evolutionist (if you want to use this word) is not a faith, but a scientific hypothesis.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I did make a long post as a rebut to your last, but thought better of it. I realized that I debated something I don't really believe and that the onus is on the believer to make their arguments.

However, even though we "think" we know Roman history, there aren't much material that survived the ages. We don't have a surviving census for example, besides the two scraps found in Egypt that were rather late censuses (104 AD and 119 AD). We don't know much about the censuses that Augustus ordered - only that he mentioned it in his 35 feats in office. Censuses for tax purposes was a local thing and ordered and executed by local officials (the Qurinius one in 6 AD). Why would the Emperor call for an extra-ordinary census? And we don't really know why - other that he was doing a count and posted the result as a great feat in his career. Must it have been a tax census or simply a head count? We are only assuming it was a tax census.

True - that in Rome censuses was conducted by current residence. But in Judea people had to travel to their ancestral home. I don't think this is refutable. Question is - did the Romans allow it, respecting Jewish customs?
I read one scholar's opinion on this. He basically said that traveling to the city of David for the census was just the excuse. Mary tagged along because the future King had to be born in the city of David. Which begs the question - Why did Luke make all the fuss about the census mixing in the wrong references? He is supposed to be THE historian of the gospel writers and would have had access to better sources than we have today.

Damn... did it again.

True, so far as it goes, but as a historian who focuses on the Republic, I have to say that there are many things with can be inferred with confidence.

The censuses ordered by Augustus in the res gestae are not exceptional in and of themselves.

In my fifth consulship [29 BC] I increased the number of patricians on the instructions of the people and the senate. 2 I revised the roll of the senate three times. In my sixth consulship with Marcus Agrippa as colleague [28 BC], I carried out a census of the people, and I performed a lustrum after a lapse of forty-two years; at that lustrum 4,063,000 Roman citizens were registered. 3 Then a second time I performed a lustrum with consular imperium and without a colleague, in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius [8 BC]; at that lustrum 4,233,000 citizens were registered. 4 Thirdly I performed a lustrum with consular imperium, with Tiberius Caesar, my son, as colleague, in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius [AD 14]; at that lustrum 4,957,000 citizens were registered.

The reference to the lustrum indicates that Augustus was, in essence, holding the Republican office of censor (though with added perks in the second and third instances). This indicates that these were censuses held in the city of Rome itself and Italy, and ought to have no relevance to the wider empire.

There is a the difficulty of a sudden increase in the number of citizens recorded (1000000 ~85 BCE; 4000000 ~28 BCE), but the inclusion of women, children and old men, could account for this. The point is that the people recorded were citizens. There is a plausible political motive for this revival, but it does not impact the NT cnensus.

This must be related to that of Quirinius in 6 AD, the 'local census': now this must be for taxation purposes, since there is no other reason for the state to make a record of the number and wealth of inhabitants of a newly acquired province. Also, as HT has mentioned, the is no reason why Joseph, as a Galilean under the rule of Herod Antiphas, would be effected. It would be reasonable, then, to assume that Luke has simply connected the birth to a well-known event, and sought to account for the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in the 'City of David'...

please provide one specific fact i avoid as you claimed. i will be keeping your quote above for later thread on creation vs evolution to compare and see who does avoid facts. I will ask for any one example from you that i ignore, than i will provide for you one you must ignore, than well keep score, as i said above creationist get to laugh most. Evolutionist so confident, never able to defend their faith, i say indoctrination is the reason.

With respect to the word 'fact': from 'factum' a thing done. Literally, the latin root means something that was done, but in English something that is verifiably true. The problem arises in the verification. TR would, I presume, argue that Biblical text in itself is verification enough for the status of fact, though he he would deal with different readings I do not know. Brenus, again I presume, would suggest that something which is generally accepted by experts in a given scientific or historical field would be a fact, hence the Gilgamesh reference.

My own view is that all facts, and 'truths' are subjective. If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements and be convinced that we were correct. CCTV footage might give you the answer, and you might argue that a record of something is a fact, but records can be faked/mistaken. A record of an event proves only that someone recorded that event in that way.

Hence, these irreconciable differences: each has his own truth, and if unwilling to accept that his truth could be false: deadlock.

[Empire*Of*Media]

“as Brenus too! but your much better than him his far far worse.” I don’t intervene anymore in TR posts as they stop to make me laugh.
Now, as you spoke of me: I don’t “believe”. I came always with facts. Well, I do believe in few things (Justice, Freedom, and others concepts). But when some (as you did few time) come with absolutely no evidences at all, about subjects you have absolutely no clue (i.e. Forrisson being an historian in the WW2 and Holocaust), or me being a US citizen, I have to react, When you pick all revisionist theories you can find in Internet (none of them given a single little proof of what they implies (never came once with invoices testimonies, plans or witnesses), I challenged you. You are the one who went for insults and other smoke screen tactic in order to deflect the need of answers.

first of all as once i think Pannonian said you are Imperialists Lover and Support of hatred & Colonialism and you will even justify the most evil of their works! anyway....

Really Facts?! huh you know yourself as The Perfect Truth !!
facts...hmmmm....lol....bringing some vents of hate and Anger and Falsification of a Killer & Imperialist English Officer from Criminal East India Company about a great man like gandhi that millions and Even Billions people adore his Personality is FACT ?!

if thats Fact, i never even look at Facts!!

[Kadagar_AV]

TR, you would be right, if only "and" and "or" were the same thingy.

Unfortunately it isn't, and that gives room for more than one shiver up ones spine when it comes to your reading comprehension of other more advanced texts.

Basically, I give you a 0/10 in reading comprehension.

You could have got one point, if you acknowledged you haven't got the faintest idea of what you just read.

[Sigurd]

By the way, my post on the question of Herod and the census was taken directly from a statement from your OP, yet you have not responded to it. I'm not waiting in anticipation, given that you do not have the knowledge required to attempt to counter it.

I did make a long post as a rebut to your last, but thought better of it. I realized that I debated something I don't really believe and that the onus is on the believer to make their arguments.

However, even though we "think" we know Roman history, there aren't much material that survived the ages. We don't have a surviving census for example, besides the two scraps found in Egypt that were rather late censuses (104 AD and 119 AD). We don't know much about the censuses that Augustus ordered - only that he mentioned it in his 35 feats in office. Censuses for tax purposes was a local thing and ordered and executed by local officials (the Qurinius one in 6 AD). Why would the Emperor call for an extra-ordinary census? And we don't really know why - other that he was doing a count and posted the result as a great feat in his career. Must it have been a tax census or simply a head count? We are only assuming it was a tax census.

True - that in Rome censuses was conducted by current residence. But in Judea people had to travel to their ancestral home. I don't think this is refutable. Question is - did the Romans allow it, respecting Jewish customs?
I read one scholar's opinion on this. He basically said that traveling to the city of David for the census was just the excuse. Mary tagged along because the future King had to be born in the city of David. Which begs the question - Why did Luke make all the fuss about the census mixing in the wrong references? He is supposed to be THE historian of the gospel writers and would have had access to better sources than we have today.

Damn... did it again.