Posts by Coded Logic

62

Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

by Island Man in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

Coded Logic

I don't think it's particularly rational or reasonable to say the human mind is the ultimate source of all truth.
- SBF

(strawman argument)

Who's saying the human mind is the "ultimate" source of truth? I feel like you're just making up straw man positions so you can attack them instead of dealing with the real issues being raised on this thread.

Truth is the label we apply to claims that match reality. Individual claims are either true or they are not true. When you say "ultimate truth" no one knows what you're talking about.

This would be like me making up some non-existent problem and then trying to use it to disprove Yahweh, "God can't account for Intrinsic Theocracy therefore all beliefs in God are self refuting."

Either the human mind is the product of undirected evolution, in which case there is no reason to suppose it has a particular capacity for identifying truth. Or else the human mind is the result of divine direction

(false dichotomy)

Having the ability to process information is hugely beneficial to living organisms. No supernatural appeals required. Creatures that understand their environments have a distinct advantage over creatures that don't understand their environment. Wolves that know how to can track a herd of bison are going to fare better than the wolves that can't track the herd of bison and/or that do so incorrectly.

Thus wolves that have a better understanding of reality are more likely to raise offspring. And more likely to pass on that ability. Whereas the wolves that don't understand reality as well are less likely to raise offspring and less likely to spread their genes.

133

What are the biggest holes in evolution?

by shadow in

how honest are the proponents of evolution?

idk but curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?

Coded Logic

or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions

I'm sorry, but this must be one of the absolute stupidest things you could say on this forum. Almost every single person on here used to reject evolution. Our preconception was that evolution was FALSE!

It was only because of evidence based arguments that we changed our minds!

And I really don't know what to say here, it's like someone asking me, "What are the holes in the theory of gravity?"

"What are the holes in Atomic Theory?"

"What are the holes in Cell Theory?"

As far as I know, there aren't any holes in any of these. Or in evolution. And if I could find a hole in any of them, I would write a peer reviewed paper on it and win myself a Noble Prize!

30

Original Sin / Salvation without a literal Adam and Eve?

by Coded Logic in

something i've never understood is if adam and eve are just metaphorical where did "original sin" come from.

and, if there was no original sin, what is the value of jesus sacrifice?.

i know a lot of christians believe in evolution but i've never understood how such a belief is structured.

Coded Logic

Something I've never understood is if Adam and Eve are just metaphorical where did "original sin" come from. And, if there was no original sin, what is the value of Jesus sacrifice?

I know a lot of Christians believe in evolution but I've never understood how such a belief is structured. My personal experience might be a little different as I didn't accept evolution until after I realized the Bible was something I couldn't justify believing as "divinely inspired".

Not looking to debate anyone on this thread - just genuinely curious if anyone on here is a Christian and also accepts evolution and/or doesn't believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Would be much obliged if you could share your thoughts on the issue.

31

The GB know it's all lies and wants to dismantle the WTS ... then what?

by Simon in

so imagine the gb have a sudden attack of honesty and realize "crap, this whole thing is lies - we're not god's spokespeople at all !".

how do you dismantle a religion that has +8 million members in a responsible way?

you can't just publish a watchtower saying "we were wrong" because that would be irresponsible - you need to let people down gently, put people off gradually.

Coded Logic

This would be a fairly simple problem to solve. Over the course of a couple of years they could phase out the term F&DS and slowly stop being so authoritarian about everything. The second step would be to hand over more power to individual congregations and make almost everything a "conscience matter". The final phase would be shutting down the various headquarters, retiring the organisational name "Watchtower", and having each Kingdom Hall operate with autonomy under the umbrella term of "Jehovah's Witnesses" much like the the Methodists Church does.

http://www.umc.org/who-we-are/constitutional-structure

42

What I thought CLAM meant , can you think of anymore ?

by smiddy in

for a while there i was confused as to what clam stood for .. ideas that crossed my mind .

christ left a ministry , or meeting .

children`s lives are mine .....( pedo`s in the borg ).

Coded Logic

Contemporary Lies for the Absent Minded

Calculated Lunacy and Astounding Madness

Convoluted and (over)Lapping Apocalyptic Malarky

or maybe it's another way of talking about elders? - Clueless Lackys who Arrogantly Manage

67

Is proselytizing less condescending when evolutionists do it?

by paul from cleveland in

is it just me?

Coded Logic

Crofty,

You're arrogance is truly astounding, how dare you use verifiable facts and multiple lines of evidence to support your conclusions - all the while propagating informed opinions and making an effort to understand the necessary principles at hand on any given topic. Why the gull! The nerve!

First it starts with evolution - next thing we know you'll be promoting science!!! DOES YOUR DEBAUCHERY KNOW NO BOUNDS?!!!

14

Conversation with a Biblical scholar - Richard Dawkins

by CookieMonster in

quite interesting when you look at the bible objectively and the historical records.

it highlights the problems of using the bible as authoritative and validation of history.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxcutg0lvr0.

spoiler: didn't know that the immanuel prophecy attributed to jesus as being born from a virgin is actually a mistranslation.

Coded Logic

Slimboyfat,

I'm not sure if it's a miscommunication issue on my part or if you're just being obtuse but let's give it one more try shall we? You made the claim:

This professor says the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not applied to the gospels in the manuscript tradition before the mid-fourth century.

Plain and simple, the professor did NOT say this nor did he remotely imply it. He even went so far as to specifically point out that, for the Gospel of John, we have a late second century manuscript that includes the name. No one here is saying that the early manuscripts lacked these titles.

You attacking this guy for a position he doesn't hold.

More importantly, the reason the Gospels are "anonymous" is because the names were never meant to establish authorship. Rather, they were place holders to tell the narratives apart.

We know this for several reasons:

1.) The Greek preposition κατά (speculative - "handed down", "according to") is used to identify the Gospels instead of a proper genitive case that would imply an author's ownership or identity.

2.) None of the Gospels identify the Author's in the body of the work which was common practice at the time.

3.) The Gospels are written in the 3rd person instead of being first hand accounts.

4.) When the Gospels are quoted by early writers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc.) they never use the Gospel names.

5.) It's highly unlikely that a fisherman (John) and a tollbooth collector (Matthew) would be literate. Even worse, as Galileans, they spoke Aramaic. Not the Greek the books are written in.

14

Conversation with a Biblical scholar - Richard Dawkins

by CookieMonster in

quite interesting when you look at the bible objectively and the historical records.

it highlights the problems of using the bible as authoritative and validation of history.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxcutg0lvr0.

spoiler: didn't know that the immanuel prophecy attributed to jesus as being born from a virgin is actually a mistranslation.

Coded Logic

It's a bit disconcerting when an "expert" makes such a jarring factual error. This professor says the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not applied to the gospels in the manuscript tradition before the mid-fourth century. That is plain wrong.

Wow SBF, that would be a major error on the Professor's part . . . IF you were right.

But you're not. Dawkins asked him when the names were added and he said, "The bulk of the Gospels - in terms of the manuscript tradition - you have to go all the way into the fourth century." (16:50)

This is an accurate statement. The vast majority of manuscripts did not have the names attached. The paper you cite even goes on to explain that we have only one manuscript from the 2nd century with the name John attached to it. And, for the other Gospels, we never see the names attached until the 3rd century. But the point made is these manuscripts with names were the exceptions. Not the tradition.

It's not until the 4th century before we start seeing the names being applied to the Gospels with any regularity.

11

Are you related to me?

by Coded Logic in

the chances that anyone on this forum is my biological brother or sister, purely from a statistical point of view, is rather low.

but how many generations back would we have to go to have a fair chance that one of my ancestors married one of your ancestors (or procreated anyway)?.

i was born in 1985. less than 20 years before my birth my two parents were being conceived by a combined 4 parents of their own.. and if we go back even further, to 40 years before my birth, then i'll find an additional 8 ancestors.. around the 60 year mark i have another 16 ancestors.

Coded Logic

The chances that anyone on this forum is my biological brother or sister, purely from a statistical point of view, is rather low. But how many generations back would we have to go to have a fair chance that one of my ancestors married one of your ancestors (or procreated anyway)?

I was born in 1985. Less than 20 years before my birth my two parents were being conceived by a combined 4 parents of their own.

And if we go back even further, to 40 years before my birth, then I'll find an additional 8 ancestors.

Around the 60 year mark I have another 16 ancestors

80 years back gives me an additional 32 ancestors

And so on

. . .

By the time I've gone back to the year 1545 I would expect to have around 8.3 million LIVING relatives. Only 50 years after Columbus had discovered North America more people alive were grandparents to me than are currently active publishers with the Watchtower today. Just 22 generations back . . . 22 conceptions and births and surely one of my ancestors would have witnessed Martin Luther's separation from the Catholic Church. Or would have served under King Henry the VIII. Just 22 generations ago.

So, are you related to me? Well of course - we're all related. But we probably don't have to go back the thousands or tens of thousands of years we might expect to find our common ancestry. Perhaps 500 years ago one of my 8 million living relatives married one of your 8 million living relatives.

Chances are none of you here are my biological brother or sister. But there's a pretty good chance you're my cousin from the last millennium.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5791530/why-humans-all-much-more-related-than-you-think

62

Brooklyn news on sending the elderly packing

by I am a Bible Student in

johnny the bethelite on this program talks about the older bethelites being targeted by watchtower.they are getting rid of those at bethel who are 65-87 years old, some being anointed even the widows of former governing body members who gave decades of loyal service time to the watchtower organization.. the reasons the very elderly are being expelled are money in that for their age range they cost so much to cloth, fed, and medicate, having problems from high blood pressure to dementia.

they include persons such as sister henschel whose husband had been a watchtower president and marian sydlik whose parents are long dead.. https://soundcloud.com/rick-fearon/jan-16-2016-johnny-the-bethelite-watchtower-insider-host-his-radio-program-from-brooklyn-ny .

Coded Logic

I agree that extraordinary claims require vigerous evidence. But this isn't an extraordinary claim. We know Bethel has been cutting costs for some time now. We know they have been reducing the number of staff at Brooklyn. And we know that many services are no longer going to be offered (food, laundry, cleaning, etc.).

The idea that they're no longer going to look after the elderly in their ¨family¨ seems to be completely in line with that. And while consistency doesn't necessarily equate accuracy I feel the claim being made here (regardless of the source) is exactly what we would predict to happen next. They're cutting costs at all costs - compassion and human decency be damned.