If you find my personal beliefes offensive, then you shouldn't be reading this. Personally I believe in God, the Devil, good, and evil, but on the same note, there are things that I do not believe in the Bible. Many things, as people are slowly coming to realize, that are recorded in the Bible can be scientifically proven as to how and why they occured.
For example, remember the 10 plagues? There is to be a documentary soon released giving scientific theories of them. This isn't the first time someone has tried this, and theories of why the plagues may have naturally occured have exsisted since science became more than meer "witchcraft". I'll give some examples of how the 10 plagues might have occured.
1. Water Turns to Blood
This is a naturally, albeit rare, phenomenon. Many people now believe that the waters were turned red because of gases released by underwater tremors. This is similar to what happened to the lakes in Cameroon in 1986.
2. Frogs
The gases from the underwater tremors could have also caused the frogs to die out.
3, 4, & 5. Locusts, Lice, and Flies
Without the frogs, the insects would breed until they overwhelmed the human population.
6, 7, & 8. Diseased Livestock, Boils, and Death of the Firstborn
When the insects began to over populate, the would be an increased chance of disease spreading, accounting for the livestock and boils. As for the death of the firstborn, in those times, the first born son was important to the Egyptian family, who would, more than likely, recieve a larger helping of meat. With the diseased livestock, the firstborn would injest more of the disease and would, therefore, be more likely to die. Remember that then even food posioning could kill you.
9 & 10. Darkness and Fire from the Sky
Some geologists believe the Santorini volcano, 400 miles north of Egypt, erupted in the eastern Mediterranean. The ash that spread into the air may have caused the darkness, blocking out sunlight for many, many miles. This may have also caused the "fire from the sky", or heat lightening. When the lightening struck the Earth, it would more than likely start a fire.
When the Bible was written years later, the tales were stretched from them being passed on generation after generation by mouth. Also take into consideration that the writters of the Bible were human and probably inserted their own perspective of what happened. I'm not saying that nothing in the Bible is true, but I do believe that some things in the Bible have a more reasonable explanation than what people believe. Think about it.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| I'm not saying that nothing in the Bible is true, but I do believe that some things in the Bible have a more reasonable explanation than what people believe. Think about it. |
No one can dispute that. But you are using bad epistemology. You should never assume something is true then use it to prove that assumption. Watch:
- i will assume that everything Joe says is true.
- Joe said it will rain today, but it did not rain.
- Since Joe always speaks true, it must have rained somewhere else.
- Therefore, Joe was right again.
You can keep going forever:
- i will assume that everything Joe says is true.
- Joe said it will rain today, but it did not rain.
- Since Joe always speaks true, it must have rained somewhere else.
- It didn't rain anywhere on Earth.
- Since Joe always speaks true, it must have rained on Venus.
- Therefore, Joe was right again.
Personally, i can't imagine what the point of a documentary on the subject would be. If you already believe that the bible is true, then you really don't need those explanations (or you didn't really believe). If you don't already believe the bible is true, then any such "proofs" are specious. It's a waste of celluloid.It is rather interesting to read theories to explain what people said happened during that time period. I'm sure there are a myriad of things that could be used to explain the plagues 
.
I've been told recently of a "water canopy" theory reguarding the great flood. I looked for it on wikipedia (not that its the most acurate source in the world)
| Quote: |
The basis for the idea is Genesis 1:6-7 (KJV):
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Proponents of the canopy hold that the firmament described in the passage refers to the atmosphere, because Genesis 1:20 can be translated to state that God created birds to fly in the firmament. They note that the passage provides for waters both above and below the atmosphere, and infer that there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere before the flood. |
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_canopy
It is, to say the least, an interesting idea. The destruction of such an atmosphere could be explained by the earth's magnetic field shifting every 100,000 years. Leaving it somewhat exposed to solar "wind" for a period of time. That's just my own take on a possability though, from the arguements against it, I think the canopy may not even be possible. It's still an interesting idea though. Indi,
I think you were missing the point of what I was trying to say. I was making an attempt to say that SOME things may be true, and SOME things may not be. That was the whole point of this. I was stating the scientific views of the Bible that some people choose to believe, but others do not. The 10 plagues may very well be the "will of God" or they may not be. My intend was to give people a different view and enlighten them somewhat on the different theories that are out there.
I'm not saying that anyone is right or that anyone is wrong in their assumptions or their own personal beliefs. And you're right in saying that no one can know for sure what happened unless they had been there themselves, or there was some inrefutiable evdience of what might have occured.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| I think you were missing the point of what I was trying to say. I was making an attempt to say that SOME things may be true, and SOME things may not be. That was the whole point of this. I was stating the scientific views of the Bible that some people choose to believe, but others do not. The 10 plagues may very well be the "will of God" or they may not be. My intend was to give people a different view and enlighten them somewhat on the different theories that are out there. |
Oh, i got your point. My question was... who cares? Either you believe the biblical account, in which case you don't really need theories to explain them - or you don't, in which case you don't really need theories to explain them. Either way... what's the point?
Take the plagues of Egypt for example. Outside of the bible, there is virtually no archeological evidence for them. You would think that events of that magnitude in such quick succession would spark the interest of contemporary Egyptian commentators. Nope. Not a peep. There is, i think, one mention of disasters in Egyptian history... but like thousands of years before the alleged Isrealite Exodus. Not a word about the death of a Pharaoh's son in a plague that killed the first borns of all Egypt... and we have grain storage records from these people. You'd think some mention of it might have slipped into the writings of Egypt at some point.
So try to put yourself in the shoes of a secular historian. The only mention of these plagues is in a religious book that has dozens of known factual errors. The story is sandwiched between other ridiculously far-fetched stories like staffs turning into snakes. What would you conclude?
Obviously you're going to conclude that it's just a story, and that it's purpose is to trumpet the glory and power of the Isrealite god... not to record actual historical events. And once you've concluded that... why would you bother to consider any attempted rationalizations of it? You've concluded it's a myth... why would you be interested in empty speculation of how it could be possible? That's like trying to figure out the physiology of dragons... fun, maybe, but ultimately pointless.
Now put yourself in the shoes of a historian who believes these events occurred. You already believe they happened as described. Why do you really need to speculate on whether the river of blood was actually blood or dirty water? It changes nothing either way - you already believe it happened. It's like trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... fun, maybe (if that's your idea of fun), but ultimately pointless.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| I'm not saying that anyone is right or that anyone is wrong in their assumptions or their own personal beliefs. And you're right in saying that no one can know for sure what happened unless they had been there themselves, or there was some inrefutiable evdience of what might have occured. |
Actually... i didn't say that. >.< (And it's not actually true, but not really relevant here.) What i did say is that this method of determining what happened is bad practice.
i'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. But i am saying that if you're serious about acquiring real knowledge, there is a right way to go about getting it - and a whole host of wrong ways. Assuming something is true then trying to prove it true... is a wrong way (as i showed with the Joe example).
To anyone actually serious about acquiring real knowledge of the events... doing what you're suggesting (assuming the bible is true then trying to "explain" it) is just plain bad practice.
Obviously i don't know if the plagues really happened or not. But this method of trying to figure it out... is wrong. And, ultimately, pointless.Well, this IS the "philosophy and religion" board, not the "history" board. If you think this is bad, you should go see some of the other threads.
Actually, I don't think it's that bad. Religion's all just a great drama series to me anyways, so this was an interesting read (I prefer this version because it's slightly more scientific and I can understand it better: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2007/04/doctors-take-on-plagues.html). Indi,
First of all, if you don't care about the subject I'm posting, then don't read it. I'm not looking for your approval or your rather unconstructive critisim.
| Quote: |
i'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. But i am saying that if you're serious about acquiring real knowledge, there is a right way to go about getting it - and a whole host of wrong ways. Assuming something is true then trying to prove it true... is a wrong way (as i showed with the Joe example). |
This is where you have trouble understanding me. I'm not trying to prove history, I'm saying that IF the 10 plagues happened, THEN this is a good scientific theory. Yes, I'm going on an assumption, but you would have to in order to provide a theory for the 10 plagues, just like you would have to assume the 10 plagues didn't happen if you were giving a theory for why it didn't happen. This is one of the problems of the Bible right now because there is so little evidence proving or disproving it.
And as for your little if-then statements, I know what deductive reasoning is, and I know that it doesn't apply to this subject. "What if?" is also part of philosophy. Such as:
"What if we were all just some crazy man's dream?" You have to either assume that you're some crazy man's dream, or assume that your not, depending on what you want to theorize. You're trying to use "if-then" when I'm trying to use "what if?". "If-then" is for historians, and they only OCCASIONALLY use "what if?". "What if?" is for the Bible at this moment, considering the little amount of evidence and the spirital factor.
So, you wanna talk about history? Then go somewhere else and stop posting replies using reasoning that this topic is not based on. | laurenrox wrote: |
This is where you have trouble understanding me. I'm not trying to prove history, I'm saying that IF the 10 plagues happened, THEN this is a good scientific theory. Yes, I'm going on an assumption, but you would have to in order to provide a theory for the 10 plagues, just like you would have to assume the 10 plagues didn't happen if you were giving a theory for why it didn't happen. This is one of the problems of the Bible right now because there is so little evidence proving or disproving it.
|
And this is where you have trouble understanding Indi. The point is that you do not have to believe or disbelieve something to theorise about it. It is perfectly possible to theorise about the plagues from any of the 3 available positions - believe it, disbelieve it, don't know. | Quote: |
And as for your little if-then statements, I know what deductive reasoning is, and I know that it doesn't apply to this subject. "What if?" is also part of philosophy. |
'What-if' questions are tackled using deductive reasoning, as well as abductive reasoning. | Quote: |
"What if we were all just some crazy man's dream?" You have to either assume that you're some crazy man's dream, or assume that your not, depending on what you want to theorize. |
No you don't. | Quote: |
| Theorising is not dependant on assumptions. |
You just said (above) that it was. | Quote: |
| You're trying to use "if-then" when I'm trying to use "what if?". "If-then" is for historians, and they only OCCASIONALLY use "what if?". "What if?" is for the Bible at this moment, considering the little amount of evidence and the spirital factor. |
This is a false dichotomy. 'What if' questions can be and are attacked logically using deductive reasoning as in:
Posit: What if x?
If x then y
If y then z
Since not(z) therefore not(x) | Quote: |
Quote:
Theorising is not dependant on assumptions.
You just said (above) that it was. |
That was no where in my post to Indi.
| Quote: |
| And this is where you have trouble understanding Indi. The point is that you do not have to believe or disbelieve something to theorise about it. It is perfectly possible to theorise about the plagues from any of the 3 available positions - believe it, disbelieve it, don't know. |
The point is not believing in it, it's pretending that you believe in it for a second.
| Quote: |
Quote:
"What if we were all just some crazy man's dream?" You have to either assume that you're some crazy man's dream, or assume that your not, depending on what you want to theorize.
No you don't. |
Yes, you do. In order to theorise about something, you have to stop and say, 'Okay, I don't believe this, but suppose I did for a second..." That's what I mean when I say "you have to assume that something is true or not before you theorise about it." It doesn't mean you have to believe it, just that you have to pretend for a second, otherwise you wouldn't even bother with it. You have to open up the possiblities for it in order to think about it properly.
| Quote: |
This is a false dichotomy. 'What if' questions can be and are attacked logically using deductive reasoning as in:
Posit: What if x?
If x then y
If y then z
Since not(z) therefore not(x) |
Yeah I and I used that. What if the 10 plagues are real?
If they are, then they could've been cause by ...
But what I was trying to point out was that Indi was just using plain if-then, and saying that the what-if was pointless. He was trying to disprove the what-if, when that wasn't even my concern. | laurenrox wrote: |
| Quote: | Quote:
Theorising is not dependant on assumptions.
You just said (above) that it was. |
That was no where in my post to Indi. |
I took the following as meaning that | Quote: |
| You have to either assume that you're some crazy man's dream, or assume that your not, depending on what you want to theorize. |
| Quote: |
Yes, you do. In order to theorise about something, you have to stop and say, 'Okay, I don't believe this, but suppose I did for a second..." That's what I mean when I say "you have to assume that something is true or not before you theorise about it." It doesn't mean you have to believe it, just that you have to pretend for a second, otherwise you wouldn't even bother with it. You have to open up the possiblities for it in order to think about it properly. |
And I repeat you don't. Belief does not enter into it. It is perfectly possible to theorize without pretending you belief the posit in question (or, for that matter disbelieve it). Scientists do it all the time. | Quote: |
| And I repeat you don't. Belief does not enter into it. It is perfectly possible to theorize without pretending you belief the posit in question (or, for that matter disbelieve it). Scientists do it all the time. |
Explain. | laurenrox wrote: |
| Quote: | | And I repeat you don't. Belief does not enter into it. It is perfectly possible to theorize without pretending you belief the posit in question (or, for that matter disbelieve it). Scientists do it all the time. |
Explain. |
When a scientist theorises, the issue of belief is (or should be) irrelevant. The theory must, according to scientific method, contain the seeds of it's own destruction (ie if x is observed then this theory is invalid).
To take a concrete example, you could ask me to theorise about the plagues in the bible. I could happily do so without having to take a stance on whether they are true or not. I do not have to believe or disbelieve in them (or even pretend to do so) in order to form a theory about what could have been meant or how they could have originated...it is possible to do so from a completely dispassionate POV.Thanks, that answer is a bit clearer. Personally, that's how I think of things in my own mind. I try to step into and say, 'Okay, what if I did believe this..." It just makes things easier for me consider why someone might believe something and why I believe something different. And you're right, as far as tests go, even if you did believe in something, it wouldn't alternate the results.
I was wrong in not considering the fact that not everyone follows the same thinking process as I do.
However, Indi was getting on my last nerve with his cocky little remarks. He was trying to say, "Nobody gives a damn, so why are you writing this drivle?" I was simply putting something interesting out in the open. If he doesn't care about it, then he shouldn't post about it. Other people find it interesting.
| laurenrox wrote: |
Thanks, that answer is a bit clearer. Personally, that's how I think of things in my own mind. I try to step into and say, 'Okay, what if I did believe this..." It just makes things easier for me consider why someone might believe something and why I believe something different. And you're right, as far as tests go, even if you did believe in something, it wouldn't alternate the results.
I was wrong in not considering the fact that not everyone follows the same thinking process as I do.
However, Indi was getting on my last nerve with his cocky little remarks. He was trying to say, "Nobody gives a damn, so why are you writing this drivle?" I was simply putting something interesting out in the open. If he doesn't care about it, then he shouldn't post about it. Other people find it interesting. |
I think you are perhaps reading more into Indi's comments than is there. I don't believe he was trying to say that (Indi is perfectly able, of course, to stand up for himself and this should not be taken as an apologia). My own observation is that Indi tends to cut to the heart of the matter and this sometimes comes across as dismissive when it is intended simply to focus. I would also say that Indi does not normally make personal attacks in my experience and I doubt whether he meant his comments to be taken that way. Again I do not want to say what he did or did not mean since that would be presumptuous of me, I'm merely giving my own take...
In this medium it is very easy to read something unintended or misconstrue something intended otherwise...I know because I have been guilty many times myself. | laurenrox wrote: |
| However, Indi was getting on my last nerve with his cocky little remarks. He was trying to say, "Nobody gives a damn, so why are you writing this drivle?" I was simply putting something interesting out in the open. If he doesn't care about it, then he shouldn't post about it. Other people find it interesting. |
i am really getting tired of people putting words in my mouth. That ignorant statement that you attribute to me... that comes from you, not me.
What i was trying to say, i said. What i said was that there is no reason to find "explanations" for the plagues. And i explained that claim two ways:
- From the standpoint of the relevance of the knowledge to anyone. Either you believe they happened, in which case the mechanism is not relevant. Or you don't believe they happened, in which case the mechanism is not relevant. Therefore, there is no one for whom the results of this line of questioning is really relevant.
- From the standpoint of the validity of the knowledge. There is no epistemological reason to assume that the plagues happened, or that they happened as described. Therefore any speculation on how they happened starts with an empirically baseless assumption. That's bad practice for generating valid knowledge.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| First of all, if you don't care about the subject I'm posting, then don't read it. I'm not looking for your approval or your rather unconstructive critisim. |
If i didn't care about it, i wouldn't read it. If i had no constructive criticism, i wouldn't offer any. i am not giving or denying my approval of anything, and frankly, i couldn't care less about whether you felt you needed my approval or not.
However, as long as i am posting in this forum, i am a philosopher. That means i have a duty to knowledge, truth and reason so much so as it is to the best of my abilities to determine them. The job of a philosopher is to ask questions and challenge preconceptions. If there were a village where people had to walk a mile to the well to get water, the philosopher would be the guy saying: "Why don't we move the village closer to the well?"
In this context: you have spent a lot of time and effort rationalizing the plagues into mundane physical causes. As a philosopher, i asked: "Why". This, apparently, has offended you greatly.
If i thought you were an idiot not worth wasting time on, i would not have wasted time on you. If i thought your arguments were so stupid that they weren't worth comment, i would not have commented on them. What i saw was that you had spent a lot of time and effort trying to answer those questions, and it seemed to me that you were failing to see the forest for the trees. You were focussed on answering those questions that you considered important, apparently without bothering to ask if they really were important. If i thought you were a waste of time, i would have just left you to it. Instead, i pointed out that your efforts might not have any greater point, and that you might want to focus on questions that matter.
If your goal was to try and convince unbelievers that the plagues are possible, your efforts are - as i pointed out - wasted. You're not going to impress unbelievers with those points.
On the other hand, if you were talking to believers... what were you trying to tell them? They already believe the events happened. Your speculations on how are rather pointless to them.
i figured that it might be a good idea to point this out to you so you don't waste your time any more. There are many other relevant - even important - questions that you could be concentrating on. But if you really want to go on asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, go for it. i'm not going to stop you. And your response has certainly dissuaded me of any further attempts to help you out when i see you getting stuck.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| Quote: |
i'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. But i am saying that if you're serious about acquiring real knowledge, there is a right way to go about getting it - and a whole host of wrong ways. Assuming something is true then trying to prove it true... is a wrong way (as i showed with the Joe example). |
This is where you have trouble understanding me. I'm not trying to prove history, I'm saying that IF the 10 plagues happened, THEN this is a good scientific theory. Yes, I'm going on an assumption, but you would have to in order to provide a theory for the 10 plagues, just like you would have to assume the 10 plagues didn't happen if you were giving a theory for why it didn't happen. This is one of the problems of the Bible right now because there is so little evidence proving or disproving it.
And as for your little if-then statements, I know what deductive reasoning is, and I know that it doesn't apply to this subject. "What if?" is also part of philosophy. Such as:
"What if we were all just some crazy man's dream?" You have to either assume that you're some crazy man's dream, or assume that your not, depending on what you want to theorize. You're trying to use "if-then" when I'm trying to use "what if?". "If-then" is for historians, and they only OCCASIONALLY use "what if?". "What if?" is for the Bible at this moment, considering the little amount of evidence and the spirital factor. |
And this is where you have trouble understanding me. "What if" questions have a purpose: to challenge preconceptions by proposing an alternate viewpoint/situation. But that's not what you're doing is it? You are using "what if" to "justify" an existing viewpoint. You're not challenging anything.
If you believe the plagues happened, why would you be interested in the question: "What if the river of blood was dirty water and not blood?" How does this train of thought grow you in any way?
Take this example, because obviously you are too emotionally attached to the subject of the plagues. Consider someone similar to Jane Goodall, who has dedicated their life to studying primates. Assume this person was inspired by watching King Kong - that movie is what inspired them to go into their line of work. Why would that person be in anyway affected by a discussion of the special effects of the movie? If you were to go to them and tell them: "It wasn't a real ape, it was a man in a suit." do you think they would care? Why would it matter to them? The story is still the same, and the emotional impact of the story is what inspired them. The mechanism by which the story was told - the special effects and cinematography - none of that is relevant to them.
Same with the plagues. For a person who believes the message of the bible... why is the mechanism of the miracles relevant? Here is what is relevant: it happened (and that is only relevant to someone who wants to take the story literally rather than allegorically), and the message is that defying God leads to trouble. All of that comes from the story of what happened, not how it happened. Does it matter whether God actually changed the molecular structure of the water to blood, or whether he removed the water completely then replaced it with blood, or whether it wasn't blood it was just silt, or... whatever? No. Everything that matters is in the story. In some way the river was turned into blood or something blood-like as punishment. That's all you need for the lesson.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| So, you wanna talk about history? Then go somewhere else and stop posting replies using reasoning that this topic is not based on. |
-_-
i am not interested in history. Nothing i have said has any relevance to any historical discussion. i am discussing epistemology... the same thing you were (assuming you weren't discussing history)... which is philosophy.
But it's the last part of that comment that troubles me: "stop posting replies using reasoning that this topic is not based on." You only want replies from people that reason the same way you do? If so, then again, i made a mistake in overestimating you. | Quote: |
| Oh, i got your point. My question was... who cares? |
You're telling me, that doesn't come off as arrogant?
Listen, I understand you don't care what people think of you, but (and I'm not trying to be mean when I say this) you really come off as an ****** sometimes, and it brings out the worst in people.
This topic hasn't gone anywhere near where I wanted it to go, and that just pisses me off even more. Maybe I didn't choose my words right when addressing you afterwards, but you really come off as having a snobby attitude, and it just makes people want to attack you. Tact is something I feel is important when addressing people, and you have to seem as though you hold some sort of respect for them, even if it's just as a human being. And it really pisses people off when you come up to them and go "Oh, this is just plain rubish." And although you may not feel like you're saying it like that, it comes off that way. And given the fact that you're having to read the words instead of listening to the person's actual voice, it can be difficult to descipher a person's tone.
Just some advice, not trying to be mean or come off as preaching, but I think it would make things a little easier on the both of us. | laurenrox wrote: |
| Quote: | | Oh, i got your point. My question was... who cares? |
You're telling me, that doesn't come off as arrogant? |
If one were to take that statement by itself, completely ignoring everything i had written before and after, sure, it might.
But after those sentences, i went on to explain exactly what i meant - going on for paragraphs - outlining exactly what that question ("Who cares?") means. There was no arrogance involved - it was a logical question following from the idea that the question has no relevance to believers and unbelievers for different reasons. i explained precisely what i meant by "care", and exactly why there was a problem figuring out who would.
The only way you could have found that arrogant is if you only read the first two sentences and then disregarded everything else in the post. i'm sure you would agree that that is bad practice, hm?
| laurenrox wrote: |
| Listen, I understand you don't care what people think of you, but (and I'm not trying to be mean when I say this) you really come off as an ****** sometimes, and it brings out the worst in people. |
i will not apologize for your misinterpretation of what i wrote. My position was made clear throughout the course of everything i wrote. There is no arrogance and no condescension. It was a valid question. You spent a lot of time and effort making an argument that i saw as pointless - and for a solid, practical reason, not just because i'm an ******. i could have left you to it, but instead, i opted to point out that you were wasting your time.
You could have responded in several ways. You could have pointed out that my reasoning was wrong and that you really weren't wasting your time (and then backed it up with a logical argument, of course). You could have said that you may be wasting your time, but this is something you enjoy doing. You could have simply said "oops, good point" then moved on.
Or, you know, you could have flipped out and called me an ******.
Don't blame me for the choice you made.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| This topic hasn't gone anywhere near where I wanted it to go, and that just pisses me off even more. Maybe I didn't choose my words right when addressing you afterwards, but you really come off as having a snobby attitude, and it just makes people want to attack you. Tact is something I feel is important when addressing people, and you have to seem as though you hold some sort of respect for them, even if it's just as a human being. And it really pisses people off when you come up to them and go "Oh, this is just plain rubish." And although you may not feel like you're saying it like that, it comes off that way. And given the fact that you're having to read the words instead of listening to the person's actual voice, it can be difficult to descipher a person's tone. |
First of all, a quick review of the topic has led me to the unsurprising finding that the only person who has claimed that this topic might be "rubbish" is you. It was you who first accused me of not caring about the topic.* It was also you who called me "cocky" and claimed that i considered your theory as "drivel", not me.*
i never once said that i considered it rubbish. i never even once said that your theories were wrong. Go back and read. You'll see. The only thing i have claimed - consistently - is that you might be wasting your time in this pursuit because the results of this line of questioning are of no relevance ot anyone. And i explained clearly why.
But right from the start you inserted your own ignorant interpretation of everything i said into my mouth, and since then you have been calling me names and claiming that i'm being "cocky" and "arrogant". Go back and read, you'll see. i think you'll find that the culprit here is not me, but your own poor comprehension skills.
So pardon me if i choose to disregard your advice, seeing as a quick read through the thread shows your claims of my poor behaviour to be rather baseless. Instead, i will offer my own advice to you. When you read what other people say, read what other people say. Do not insert your own insecurities into their words. If they seem to be saying something offensive, perhaps a wiser course of action than simply assuming the worst and hurling insults at them would be to ask them what they really mean. Just a thought.okay, fine. sorry... please, no more... -.-;
(I think the main reason for Indi posting in here and trying to prove to you that the thread is pointless.. is becuase the tittle contains the words "Science" and "Bible" next to each other. This clearly triggered the overwhelming need to prove whoever started the thread wrong, no matter the topic.)
To Indi: This was, clearly, ment to be a casual discussion about explinations for the bible's many puzzling "events". Your continual attempts to argue are not needed in this thread. It was clearly intended to be casual discussion. You are entitled to your opinion, yes, fine, but it has no place in this topic unless you have some part of the bible you'd like to share an explination for. (which I doubt you do much kind-hearted sharing and discussion, not to be rude, all I've seen from you is debate. Which is all fine and good... but...) THIS IS NOT A DEBATE THREAD... True Story 
Anyway back to the real topic at hand. The water turning to "blood" could also be several forms of "red algae" as well. The explinations you list, however, seem to have one leading to the next and to the next. Which sucks for them, but is far more likely. I can't think of any real chain that could happen from red algae :/.
It is also entertaining to read parts of the bible that are prophetic as well, as most of them are "seeing the future". Trying to discover what exactly they are trying to describe in their limited vocabulary. Try to imagine you are alive back then, you see a helicopter in your vision, how in the world do you describe such a thing? Why try to explain the things in the bible? They're not true anyway. Science and Religion does not fit together.
Indi, correct me if I am wrong but you have the incorrect epistemology. He said, "Not everything in the Bible is untrue" and you replied with an off-based | Quote: |
"No one can dispute that. But you are using bad epistemology. You should never assume something is true then use it to prove that assumption. Watch:
1. i will assume that everything Joe says is true.
2. Joe said it will rain today, but it did not rain.
3. Since Joe always speaks true, it must have rained somewhere else.
4. Therefore, Joe was right again.
You can keep going forever:
1. i will assume that everything Joe says is true.
2. Joe said it will rain today, but it did not rain.
3. Since Joe always speaks true, it must have rained somewhere else.
4. It didn't rain anywhere on Earth.
5. Since Joe always speaks true, it must have rained on Venus.
6. Therefore, Joe was right again." |
Indi-I must ask you: Whats the point? Why did you post such a useless post? This a forum. This is an interesting topic. Is that enough of a point? So what if Laurenrox failed to post the lack of egyptian records of the plagues, or did not put together a proof like statement of the plagues. Who cares? It is an intriguing topic, if you do not find it so you do not have to "dazzle" people with your off-based logical criticisms.
Laurenrox-It seems to me that you are still religious because you are afraid of Biblical threats of hellfire and peer pressure to believe in the Bible. Present to yourself solid evidence either for or against the Bible and stay true to the truth, don't be like "I'm gonna follow this book even though I think it has many scientific inconsistencies and multiple glitches cause everyone else is and it says I will go to hell if I don't obey it". | Aredon wrote: |
| (I think the main reason for Indi posting in here and trying to prove to you that the thread is pointless.. is becuase the tittle contains the words "Science" and "Bible" next to each other. This clearly triggered the overwhelming need to prove whoever started the thread wrong, no matter the topic.) |
i'm not clear why you think my reasons for posting are any of your business. i am also not clear why you think you have some kind of inside track on my motivations for posting. i have already explained why i stepped in and posted. If you want to call me a liar and say that that was not the case, don't be a coward, stand up and do so clearly.
| Aredon wrote: |
| To Indi: This was, clearly, ment to be a casual discussion about explinations for the bible's many puzzling "events". |
And how am i preventing it from being such? All i have done is shown that people engaging in the discussion would be using flawed methodologies. That is all. If you don't care that your methodology is flawed and still want to discuss it, go nuts. i do not believe in telling people what to do or what not to do. That would appear to be your forte, not mine.
| Aredon wrote: |
| Your continual attempts to argue are not needed in this thread. It was clearly intended to be casual discussion. You are entitled to your opinion, yes, fine, but it has no place in this topic unless you have some part of the bible you'd like to share an explination for. |
And... exactly... who endowed you with the authority to dictate to me where i am or am not entitled to share my opinions?
| Aredon wrote: |
| (which I doubt you do much kind-hearted sharing and discussion, not to be rude, all I've seen from you is debate. Which is all fine and good... but...) |
Again, not that what i do is any of your business - unless i am mistaken, backseat moderating is frowned on in these forums - but you seem to be sorely mistaken about the sequence of events. laurenrox made a post, presumably to start a discussion. i noticed that he was using a flawed methodology and point it out, acting under the apparently flawed assumption that this was an open discussion and that people participating in it might actually care about whether or not what they're doing actually makes any sense, epistemologically speaking. laurenrox said that my point was irrelevant, which was fine because he missed what i was getting at. So then i explained my point. And then laurenrox flipped out on me, and began to rail on me and insult me.
| Aredon wrote: |
| THIS IS NOT A DEBATE THREAD... True Story |
This is a discussion forum. i was discussing a problem i noticed in the post made by the original poster. If you have problem with that, take it to the moderators and leave me be. True story.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Indi, correct me if I am wrong but you have the incorrect epistemology. He said, "Not everything in the Bible is untrue" and you replied with an off-based |
You are wrong. i never even questioned his statement that not everything in the bible is false (or true). What i did was point out that his methods were flawed. If you assume that something (the bible for example) is true then try and explain it, you will never be shown to be wrong. And everything you do after that is just intellectually wasting your time. If i were to assume Conan was a true historical story then set out to explain how it could all actually be real, i will succeed... but i will also have wasted my time, because everything i would have done would have no useful basis in reality.
But if that's how you want to spend your time, go ahead. i'm not going to stop anyone from doing anything they want to.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Indi-I must ask you: Whats the point? Why did you post such a useless post? This a forum. This is an interesting topic. Is that enough of a point? So what if Laurenrox failed to post the lack of egyptian records of the plagues, or did not put together a proof like statement of the plagues. Who cares? It is an intriguing topic, if you do not find it so you do not have to "dazzle" people with your off-based logical criticisms. |
i must ask you: why do you and so many others think that you are experts on me and/or my motivations for posting? Why do you assume that you know why i post, even when you "theories" contradict everything i say?
i saw laurenrox making a mistake in epistemology. i, apparently foolishly, assumed that he cared about the truth as much as i do. i make that mistake often - it appears that there are many people around here who want to prattle on about whatever they feel like without anyone stepping up and saying that it makes no sense. So i made a mistake in assuming that anyone cares whether or not what laurenrox was doing was valid epistemology. Oh well. If you don't care that none of it means anything, then go ahead and post. i can't imagine why you think i'm doing anything to stop anyone. But for those who do care about finding truth, then what i pointed out is important. If that's not you, then disregard what i wrote, and carry on counting angels dancing on the heads of pins.
But cut out this shit of trying to psychoanalyze me and determine my motivations for posting. You really don't have the knack.I still don't think you understand why we are slightly annoyed by your post.
Before you post try to vindicate yourself from being accused of being
slightly annoying, I must say these things: Your original post apparently makes the assumption that this post is trying to prove a truth, which in actuality it is not. It is simply a post with another alternative theory of the origins of the Bible. Then the entire thread went on a tangent of hostility. Lastly, even the greatest philosophers did not always endlessly pursue their quest for truth like robots, they took breaks and even friendly conversations! 
Damm it Indi, laurenrox was just telling the community his personal opinion and talk about it, that is why this is called a forum.
If you want to talk about 'usless topics' go ahead and create a new topic, but don't say things that 'has nothing to do' with the main topic.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| I still don't think you understand why we are slightly annoyed by your post. |
There are many things i don't understand here.
First, who is "we"? Are "we" introducing posse justice to Frihost? Have "we" discussed this at all with the mods before beginning a campaign of harassment against someone?
Second, isn't what you're saying basically: "Everyone has a right to post their opinion... but not you Indi. No sir. You opinion wasn't what the originator of this thread wanted to hear, so it's unwelcome."
Third, why on Earth would you think i care about whether you're "slightly annoyed" or not? Since stepping into this discussion, your behaviour has been nothing but rude. If i were going to take advice on courtesy, why would i take it from someone who has so far demonstrated none?
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Your original post apparently makes the assumption that this post is trying to prove a truth, which in actuality it is not. It is simply a post with another alternative theory of the origins of the Bible. |
You have demonstrated at several points in your monologue that you did not read the thread. i really don't see why i should bother to listen to your opinions on something that you're too lazy read.
If you had actually read the thread, you would realize that your claim is wrong. My original post made no such assumption. In fact, my original post says it is not making any such assumption. i did realize that he was looking for alternate theories for the bible - my entire response is based on that. My response, in fact, was basically: "i understand that you are looking for alternative explanations for biblical events... but have you considered why? Because what you are doing will not generate any new knowledge - it's just a game for believers to play with no real value. If you want to play that game, go nuts - i'm just pointing out that it is a game."
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Then the entire thread went on a tangent of hostility. |
AH AH! Stop right there!
i am tired of being accused of doing things i did not do on Frihost. If you would actually bother to read the thread before pointing fingers, you would find out where the hostility really came from. Go ahead. i'll wait. Here, i'll even make it easy for you. When you read through the thread, answer these questions:
1.) Who got personal first?
2.) Who started accusing the other person of being a troublemaker and posting on topics they don't care about just to stir things up?
3.) Who told the other person to get lost?
4.) Who called the other person names, including "cocky" and "******"?
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Lastly, even the greatest philosophers did not always endlessly pursue their quest for truth like robots, they took breaks and even friendly conversations! |
Given that you can't be bothered to read people's posts before judging them, i can't imagine why you think you know what great philosophers do. Great philosophers also read the arguments of their peers before casting judgement on them, too.
Furthermore, i was friendly. i was not the one who threw a hissy fit when someone offered an alternate opinion. i am also not the one harassing someone simply because they offered an alternate opinion that the thread creator was not ready to hear.
If you want to continue dictating to me the way you think i should behave, get a moderator, otherwise, back off and leave me be. That is not a suggestion.
| polis wrote: |
| Damm it Indi, laurenrox was just telling the community his personal opinion and talk about it, that is why this is called a forum. |
Excuse me... who the hell are you, and where the hell are you coming from that attitude? You have contributed a sum total of squat to this conversation, and now you're coming out of nowhere to harass me?
For the record, i am aware of what laurenrox was doing, thank you. Nowhere in anything i wrote did i say he was wrong, or that he did not have a right to express his opinion. Seriously. Read what i wrote. i did not say either of those things anywhere, i didn't even imply them. In fact, i said the exact opposite. i said i didn't know whether he was right or wrong, and he was free to believe what he wanted to. i just asked why.
On the contrary, the people in this thread so far who have told others that their opinion is wrong are laurenrox and EanofAthenasPrime. The people who have told others that they have no right to express their opinion are laurenrox, Aredon, EanofAthenasPrime and polis. Interesting, hm?
| polis wrote: |
| If you want to talk about 'usless topics' go ahead and create a new topic, but don't say things that 'has nothing to do' with the main topic. |
See, this is where you really go off the radar. -_- i have not called anything in this topic useless. EanofAthenasPrime did - he called my opinion useless. i also did not say that anything has nothing to do with the topic (except for your post harassing me). i posted my opinion. i did not harass anyone (though you and others have). i did not get personal (though you and others have). i did not tell anyone that they had no right to express their opinion (though you and others have).
You judgement of me is not only unwelcome, it is ignorant. You have clearly not read the thread. Why don't you try doing so if you want to pass judgement on me? It will still be unwelcome, but at least it won't be as ignorant.
Or better yet, leave me be. If you have a problem with me, get a moderator, and quit harassing me, "damn it". | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Then the entire thread went on a tangent of hostility. |
AH AH! Stop right there!
| Indi wrote: |
i am tired of being accused of doing things i did not do on Frihost.
|
I am too, I never said you were the reason the thread went on a tangent of hostility!
Indi-the second post you posted sounds rather rude "Oh, i got your point. My question was... who cares?". Also, your 1st post seems like you
"over-scientificize" the topic, which didn't really have anything to do with proving or disproving the validity of the Bible, just providing different views.
Lastly, I was posting guidelines for you to follow, I never said I would threaten to alert the mods, why would I, you did not do something directly against the rules.LOL, you really made me laugh.
Indi, it doesn't matter who I am, where I come from, and what I do. What it is really important is that I'm right. If you thing that you must know me, or that I must have over 1000 posts to earn the right to say what I think, then you are far more superficial than what I though.
I have read your posts. You should read your own post too, so maybe you can find out why are we talking about this.
I am not harassing you, in fact I don't care who you are. I just said what I had to say because I think you are definitely being a 'troll'.
Oh, and by the way, this topic is now dead. Thank you very much.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | Then the entire thread went on a tangent of hostility. |
AH AH! Stop right there!
| Indi wrote: |
i am tired of being accused of doing things i did not do on Frihost.
|
I am too, I never said you were the reason the thread went on a tangent of hostility! |
1.) If i am not the source of the hostility, why are you talking to me? Why don't you address your posts at the people who brought the hostility into it?
2.) You did accuse me of posting a reply that was off-topic. i did not.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Indi-the second post you posted sounds rather rude "Oh, i got your point. My question was... who cares?". |
Once again, if you would read the thread, you would see that that was already dealt with. No i won't show you where. Read the thread and find out.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
Also, your 1st post seems like you
"over-scientificize" the topic, which didn't really have anything to do with proving or disproving the validity of the Bible, just providing different views. |
My response didn't have anything to do with proving or disproving the validity of the bible either. Try reading it.
In fact, try reading the first post of this thread. What does it say? Does it not say, briefly: "There are other possible explanations for the events in the bible. Here are a few examples. Maybe there are ordinary explanations for the fantastic things in the bible. Think about it."
i thought about it. And i posted my thoughts. My thoughts were: "Maybe, maybe not, but you will never find truth going about things this way." Was that what the original poster was expecting? Maybe not. Was it off-topic? Hardly. It was just another thought on the topic, which was exactly what the original post asked for.
The original poster reacted badly and has since apologized. So what exactly do you think you are doing here? This issue was closed months ago. Read the dates.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Lastly, I was posting guidelines for you to follow, I never said I would threaten to alert the mods, why would I, you did not do something directly against the rules. |
And i am not clear by what right you think you have to post guidelines for me.
Are you a mod? Nope, i'm not seeing the little icon. So that can't be it.
Maybe you're just a good example i should be following? i mean, you would never jump into a thread and start making fun of the people in it, right? You would never make nonsense posts like "lol" and so on - which are forbidden in the rules - and always make on topic posts, right? Right? Hm.
Yeah, i'm not seeing any reason why i should consider your guidelines, considering:
1.) You have no authority to be writing guidelines for these forums.
2.) You are not exactly a model citizen.
3.) You can't be bothered to read a thread before casting judgement on the participants.
| polis wrote: |
| Indi, it doesn't matter who I am, where I come from, and what I do. What it is really important is that I'm right. |
Right. -_-
| polis wrote: |
| If you thing that you must know me, or that I must have over 1000 posts to earn the right to say what I think, then you are far more superficial than what I though. |
No, i don't think any of those things. i think i shouldn't bother to listen to your opinion of what i should be doing on Frihost when you don't even follow the rules yourself. (See rules 1c, 1d and 2d, for example, with regards to your first post in this thread.)
| polis wrote: |
| I have read your posts. You should read your own post too, so maybe you can find out why are we talking about this. |
i am well aware of what i wrote. The thread introduced an idea and asked people to think about it. i thought about it and posted my opinion. You seem to believe that other people's opinions are ok, but not mine. That's not my problem, that's yours.
| polis wrote: |
| I am not harassing you, in fact I don't care who you are. I just said what I had to say because I think you are definitely being a 'troll'. |
You have a different definition of "troll" compared to the rest of the internet. The definition i found is: "someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in order to bait users into responding."
Was my post derogatory or inflammatory? Hardly. If it was, that would be against the rules, and a moderator would step in to deal with me. (Note: a moderator. Not you. Back-seat moderating is yet another rule you seem intent on breaking.) In fact, a number of people have already agreed that my posts were not breaking the rules. See EanofAthenasPrime's post right above yours.
Now, let's look at your post.
Well, it certainly looks rather inflammatory to me. And it has nothing at all to do with the topic. Hm.
| polis wrote: |
| Oh, and by the way, this topic is now dead. Thank you very much. |
Right. Am i also to blame for the high price of gas? Am i also to blame for your favourite TV show getting cancelled? Whoa, is it my fault people get cancer???
Check the dates on the posts, Einstein. -_- The thread was dead before you showed up. And i wasn't the one who killed it.Ok, I am done with this pointless debate. Lets end this. Anyway, just because I post some guidlines does not mean you have to obey them. I just thought you were being a bit unkind when you wrote your 2nd post. (Not the second post, which was your first post.) Lastly, my first post in this topic was just saying how I thought your correction of lauren's epistomoligy was off-based.
Anyways, let us forget this useless argument and continue with the discussion of the topic.
I like to look at the bible and science as the climate and the weather, one is what you expect and one is what you get
The frog thing is pretty easy to explain. I have seen that in Iran in 1976. First comes the rain, this floods the flood plain of southern Iran (Biblical flood?) to a depth of around 1 - 2 metres. The flood serves as home to a godzillion tadpoles. As the flood waters drop the tadpoles turn to little froglets who live on the mosquitoes that also grew up in the flood. Under normal circumstances the froglets would eat all the mossies and then die when they run out. But this year there was a plague of crickets (like little locusts really) due to the slow departure of the flood. The crickets had a chance to grow and eat all of the grass and flowers that ordinarily just die. So the froglets ate crickets until they could eat no more, and grew bigger and fatter.
It was an appalling year really. The crickets were everywhere; they formed piles under lampposts about a foot deep and every time you opened the front door they would pile in. When the frogs came they were cute at first; about little fingernail-sized, but they got bigger and they were constantly being squished by cars (there were absolutely tons of them) so that the ruts in the street were filled with reddish water and goo. Then the bodies began to smell and it attracted snakes and rats. When summer came there were little frog skeletons and mummified frogs everywhere. No wonder the Egyptians didn’t like it. Biological warfare.
lol @ Indi
To the OP, it is interesting to see people rationals for if the plagues happened, this is a scientific reason why. I don't think the plagues are logically impossible, not much more so then life just coming into existance, randomly. I am not going to say everything in the bible is 100% fact. But I can't say we will ever logically disprove everything in the bible either (there are a few obvious logical fallacies due to human number game errors, but they are mute, erroneous points). We always try to compare the natural laws to something that claims to originate in the supernatural. Hume cattegorizes miricles as any event that conflicts with the natural laws. (levitation, wine to blood, etc.) But to within natural laws explain some of the stuff in the bible intrigues me. I think Indi, you have made a bad generalization, I think both saved and non-saved would enjoy these theories. To the saved they could be more evidance affirming what we believe, to the non, they would bring up questions, and I think it is important to question, surely you of all people, Indi, wouldn't say people should grab a belief and stick with it, never questioning. I am completely aware that this thread is "dead" so to speak, buuuuut... *evil grin*....
| Quote: |
Laurenrox-It seems to me that you are still religious because you are afraid of Biblical threats of hellfire and peer pressure to believe in the Bible. Present to yourself solid evidence either for or against the Bible and stay true to the truth, don't be like "I'm gonna follow this book even though I think it has many scientific inconsistencies and multiple glitches cause everyone else is and it says I will go to hell if I don't obey it".
|
Just pointing out the fact that this was a rather rude statement, especially seeing as how your assuming what my beliefs are. Not to mention, that I posted several times that NONE of what I put in the first post had anything to do with my own beliefs. I don't follow the Bible for fear of hellfire/peer pressure either. As a matter of fact, I don't "follow" the Bible at all. I think that the Bible is completely useless if you're looking for directions on what's good, what's bad, what God does like, and what He/She/It doesn't. HOWEVER, I DO believe the Bible to have SOME historical value.
| Quote: |
The frog thing is pretty easy to explain. I have seen that in Iran in 1976. First comes the rain, this floods the flood plain of southern Iran (Biblical flood?) to a depth of around 1 - 2 metres. The flood serves as home to a godzillion tadpoles. As the flood waters drop the tadpoles turn to little froglets who live on the mosquitoes that also grew up in the flood. Under normal circumstances the froglets would eat all the mossies and then die when they run out. But this year there was a plague of crickets (like little locusts really) due to the slow departure of the flood. The crickets had a chance to grow and eat all of the grass and flowers that ordinarily just die. So the froglets ate crickets until they could eat no more, and grew bigger and fatter.
It was an appalling year really. The crickets were everywhere; they formed piles under lampposts about a foot deep and every time you opened the front door they would pile in. When the frogs came they were cute at first; about little fingernail-sized, but they got bigger and they were constantly being squished by cars (there were absolutely tons of them) so that the ruts in the street were filled with reddish water and goo. Then the bodies began to smell and it attracted snakes and rats. When summer came there were little frog skeletons and mummified frogs everywhere. No wonder the Egyptians didn’t like it. Biological warfare. |
Yay!!! Anyone else have anything that they want to share that's RELEVANT?
Oh, and as a side note, for those of you referring to me as "HE" ... I'm actually a chick... maybe i think so.... 
