There is one little simple question atheism can't answer...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Wait, so you are telling me that all scholars agree about what is literal and what is allegoric?

That a Biblical Christian like mindstorm who is studying the Bible would agree with a scholar of a different background.

And mind you, the background (religious, ideological etc) is merely the most common reason (at least it seems that way to me) why views may vary between scholars, not the only.

Teenaged

I think it is not disputable that background is a key factor in disagreement between scholars.

Literary analysis doesnt grant objective conclusions necessarily, and that is even beyond differing ideological or religious backgrounds. We all have differing life experiences, different cognitive and interpretative abilities and our personalities cant be completely erased when interpreting anything. From the words of our mother scolding us to a literary analysis of the Bible.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

But greyseal didnt.

He simply saw your opinion and challenged it with hypothetical (yet very plausible) scenarios.

An opinion which cant defy alternative scenarios/opinions is not proven and is therefore merely an opinion.

Teenaged

He made no claims.

He is simply challenging why your claims are superior and preferrable than others. Those others doesnt mean they are his claims; claims that he believes in. They are simply alternatives that a good debater ought to consider and offer rebutal for. Greyseal brought up the alternatives and you (granted that you actually want to debate) ought to refute them with arguments.

If you dont want to, then withdraw from the debate.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well in regard to the miracles aspect that GreySeal is keen on debating...I don't see Mindstorm disagreeing that Jesus performed miracles. Though he hasn't actually finished his studies yet so I'm not sure that we can use him.

LJS9502_basic

I think it is not disputable that background is a key factor in disagreement between scholars.

Literary analysis doesnt grant objective conclusions necessarily, and that is even beyond differing ideological or religious backgrounds. We all have differing life experiences, different cognitive and interpretative abilities and our personalities cant be completely erased when interpreting anything. From the words of our mother scolding us to a literary analysis of the Bible.

Because mindstorm is a good example of a scholar who has a "deep" Christian background. It was an example of one... "side". Sure he hasnt completed whatever cIasses he has for it but there are people like him who have completed their studies.

Scholars try to put aside their opinions and depending on how much they achieve it they are either good or bad scholars with inbetween stages of course.

To claim that it is possible for someone to "erase" their personality completely when interpreting anything to me seems extreme and very idealistic. As much as this may sound degrading (I dont believe it is) sciences pertaining to language rarely if ever reach the, lets say, "precision" of math for instance. Subjectivity is part of them and one has to recognise where subjectivity is inevitable and where it can be avoided and push further into objectivity.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]I didnt say Mindstorm would be on the side of those saying Jesus didnt perform miracles literally.

I think it is not disputable that background is a key factor in disagreement between scholars.

Literary analysis doesnt grant objective conclusions necessarily, and that is even beyond differing ideological or religious backgrounds. We all have differing life experiences, different cognitive and interpretative abilities and our personalities cant be completely erased when interpreting anything. From the words of our mother scolding us to a literary analysis of the Bible.

Teenaged

Because mindstorm is a good example of a scholar who has a "deep" Christian background. It was an example of one... "side". Sure he hasnt completed whatever cIasses he has for it but there are people like him who have completed their studies.

Scholars try to put aside their opinions and depending on how much they achieve it they are either good or bad scholars with inbetween stages of course.

To claim that it is possible for someone to "erase" their personality completely when interpreting anything to me seems extreme and very idealistic. As much as this may sound degrading (I dont believe it is) sciences pertaining to language rarely if ever reach the, lets say, "precision" of math for instance. Subjectivity is part of them and one has to recognise where subjectivity is inevitable and where it can be avoided and push further into objectivity.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That's not entirely true. He brought up the NT. I told him the source material answers that question. And in so far as the intent of the NT...the miracles etc were never intended to be construed as not literal. He has not provided any documentation that they were intended. He just presented his opinion. In fact...he even said he admitted it was opinion. So the fact that you are not changing his comment does not make it so.LJS9502_basic

He made no claims.

He is simply challenging why your claims are superior and preferrable than others. Those others doesnt mean they are his claims; claims that he believes in. They are simply alternatives that a good debater ought to consider and offer rebutal for. Greyseal brought up the alternatives and you (granted that you actually want to debate) ought to refute them with arguments.

If you dont want to, then withdraw from the debate.

You basically told him "read up on it". Why should he do the research for you. A good debater doesnt prompt the other person to do the research for them unless it is with specific directions and further explanations of how the to-research material links to the debater's argument.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Well frankly I don't know why your brought Mindstorm up. Scholars put aside their own opinion when they decide what something is trying to convey. Someone who understands the Bible would not say miracles were supposed to be read as symbolic. Even if they themselves did not believe in them. And that is the difference. You can see what a book is saying without getting involved in the faith aspect of it.LJS9502_basic

Because mindstorm is a good example of a scholar who has a "deep" Christian background. It was an example of one... "side". Sure he hasnt completed whatever cIasses he has for it but there are people like him who have completed their studies.

Scholars try to put aside their opinions and depending on how much they achieve it they are either good or bad scholars with inbetween stages of course.

To claim that it is possible for someone to "erase" their personality completely when interpreting anything to me seems extreme and very idealistic. As much as this may sound degrading (I dont believe it is) sciences pertaining to language rarely if ever reach the, lets say, "precision" of math for instance. Subjectivity is part of them and one has to recognise where subjectivity is inevitable and where it can be avoided and push further into objectivity.

If thats your opinion on literary analysis then sorry to burst your bubble but it isnt correct.

For one thing, even if we suppose that we have an intact and unaltered text, we still will always have lacking knowledge about other important parameters: customs and history in general.

Do we know everything about ancient civilisations? Can you really claim that?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]He brought it up once again as a hypothetical.

He made no claims.

He is simply challenging why your claims are superior and preferrable than others. Those others doesnt mean they are his claims; claims that he believes in. They are simply alternatives that a good debater ought to consider and offer rebutal for. Greyseal brought up the alternatives and you (granted that you actually want to debate) ought to refute them with arguments.

If you dont want to, then withdraw from the debate.

Teenaged

You basically told him "read up on it". Why should he do the research for you. A good debater doesnt prompt the other person to do the research for them unless it is with specific directions and further explanations of how the to-research material links to the debater's argument.

And no I didn't tell him to read up on it. I told him it was impossible to discuss as he hadn't studied it. You cannot have a discussion of value if one individual is not versed in the subject. Sure you can go back and forth over it....but it won't accomplish anything.

And using the word hypothtical...really in a debate? Do you think that works?

[QUOTE="KeitekeTokage"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yes long form Old Testament....not New Testament miracles which was the leap you made so I clarifyed. And I've done so again.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Because mindstorm is a good example of a scholar who has a "deep" Christian background. It was an example of one... "side". Sure he hasnt completed whatever cIasses he has for it but there are people like him who have completed their studies.

Scholars try to put aside their opinions and depending on how much they achieve it they are either good or bad scholars with inbetween stages of course.

To claim that it is possible for someone to "erase" their personality completely when interpreting anything to me seems extreme and very idealistic. As much as this may sound degrading (I dont believe it is) sciences pertaining to language rarely if ever reach the, lets say, "precision" of math for instance. Subjectivity is part of them and one has to recognise where subjectivity is inevitable and where it can be avoided and push further into objectivity.

Teenaged

If thats your opinion on literary analysis then sorry to burst your bubble but it isnt correct.

For one thing, even if we suppose that we have an intact and unaltered text, we still will always have lacking knowledge about other important parameters: customs and history in general.

Do we know everything about ancient civilisations? Can you really claim that?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Again he created the claims. I clearly told him I was talking OT symbolism and I linked him to wiki to back up the symbolism. Anything else was his created argument that I wasn't discussing. The only thing I did in regard to his continued insistence on the subject was direct him to theology. He presented no evidence that theology disagreed with a literal interpretation of the NT....and that is that.

LJS9502_basic

You basically told him "read up on it". Why should he do the research for you. A good debater doesnt prompt the other person to do the research for them unless it is with specific directions and further explanations of how the to-research material links to the debater's argument.

Presenting alternatives constitutes making claims? That makes no sense.

Repeating that he made claims doesnt make it true. He didnt say "x is true" or "y is true or "x is not true". Therefore he made no claims.

Again by the approaches I detailed earlier he most certainly can do just that: not present a definite opinion and challenge someone else's opinion with hypotheticals. If you dont like that kind of debating then let it be and exit the discussion.

A "could" is merely an alternative scenario. If you think debating does not entail taking into consideration alternative and plausible scenaria then you are very mistaken.

[ Oh and what I meant by the second part: You're claiming the OT, in places of your choosing of course, which more often than not probably happen to have obvious scientific contradictions are meant to be symbolic. You claim to know this, yet not only have absolutely nothing to back it up, but I've provide you with multiple sources that show others do think the entire OT is meant to be taken literally. Still others think that the entire OT is meant to be symbolic (different from you only thinking bits and pieces should). These are all your separate opinions, because of this Science does contradict religion. Let's start at Noah's flood. Science is in complete disagreement that the flood ever occurred, and its almost shameless that some people seem to think it could have. They almost certainly have little to no knowledge of geology or common sense (as far as the boat and two of every animal is concerned) Now, you are in that group of people who believe the flood literally happened correct? If so, I can clearly point out to you multiple fields of science that show the flood is physical impossible. So, do you think the flood literally took place?

KeitekeTokage

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Uh no, he presented alternatives to your opinion. That does not constitute making claims. Can we get this out of the way?

You basically told him "read up on it". Why should he do the research for you. A good debater doesnt prompt the other person to do the research for them unless it is with specific directions and further explanations of how the to-research material links to the debater's argument.

Teenaged

Presenting alternatives constitutes making claims? That makes no sense.

Repeating that he made claims doesnt make it true. He didnt say "x is true" or "y is true or "x is not true". Therefore he made no claims.

Again by the approaches I detailed earlier he most certainly can do just that: not present a definite opinion and challenge someone else's opinion with hypotheticals. If you dont like that kind of debating then let it be and exit the discussion.

A "could" is merely an alternative scenario. If you think debating does not entail taking into consideration alternative and plausible scenaria then you are very mistaken.

Oh and while you weren't here for his beginning argument...he did state that he disagreed with the notion that the NT was literal. Not that it could be figurative...but he disagreed.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]It's not hard to read a source material and using language and custom decipher what the intent was. That doesn't in any way mean one has to believe what they are studying. Archeology for instance would be impeded if archeologists allowed preconceived opinion color their finds.LJS9502_basic

If thats your opinion on literary analysis then sorry to burst your bubble but it isnt correct.

For one thing, even if we suppose that we have an intact and unaltered text, we still will always have lacking knowledge about other important parameters: customs and history in general.

Do we know everything about ancient civilisations? Can you really claim that?

Good. If we dont know everything about ancient civilisations can we say with certainty that there is nothing missing from the puzzle that we must assmeble in order to understand?

Most? Sorry but thats not "all". And even if we knew everything we would most probably know the most common uses or just some of them, and that is the result of not knowing everything about the history of those civilisations.

Unless you can claim complete knowledge you cant claim its easy to interpret a literary work.

I didnt say that this lack of complete knowledge completely kills everyone's arguments on literary analysis. Others do better and more complete research than others. Others are just better at interpreting, in the sense that they can think of many possible and plausible interpretations that someone else wont think of, some have covered more of the parallel philology of a text than others and thus have a more complete aspect of the language of an era and so on.

The lack of perfect knowledge doesnt mean that everything less than it is automatically rendered useless.

I mostly agree with him because what he says makes most sense to me and his interpretation of Greek is generally in agreement with my knowledge of modern and ancient greek more than any one in OT (although not wanting to "degrade" mindstorm who is another person who comments on language I havent read his blogs where he does interpret biblical passages in koine greek).

[QUOTE="KeitekeTokage"]

[ Oh and what I meant by the second part: You're claiming the OT, in places of your choosing of course, which more often than not probably happen to have obvious scientific contradictions are meant to be symbolic. You claim to know this, yet not only have absolutely nothing to back it up, but I've provide you with multiple sources that show others do think the entire OT is meant to be taken literally. Still others think that the entire OT is meant to be symbolic (different from you only thinking bits and pieces should). These are all your separate opinions, because of this Science does contradict religion. Let's start at Noah's flood. Science is in complete disagreement that the flood ever occurred, and its almost shameless that some people seem to think it could have. They almost certainly have little to no knowledge of geology or common sense (as far as the boat and two of every animal is concerned) Now, you are in that group of people who believe the flood literally happened correct? If so, I can clearly point out to you multiple fields of science that show the flood is physical impossible. So, do you think the flood literally took place?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No because he did make claims. Oh he changed how he worded it a few times. Nonetheless....one should be able to provide evidence of their stance. At least if they consider themselves to be debating. A debater just not just throw out an opposing idea and then congratulate them self on their technique. They key is providing some form of evidence that what they say has plausible merit. And no...just saying "could" is not plausible merit.LJS9502_basic

Presenting alternatives constitutes making claims? That makes no sense.

Repeating that he made claims doesnt make it true. He didnt say "x is true" or "y is true or "x is not true". Therefore he made no claims.

Again by the approaches I detailed earlier he most certainly can do just that: not present a definite opinion and challenge someone else's opinion with hypotheticals. If you dont like that kind of debating then let it be and exit the discussion.

A "could" is merely an alternative scenario. If you think debating does not entail taking into consideration alternative and plausible scenaria then you are very mistaken.

Oh and while you weren't here for his beginning argument...he did state that he disagreed with the notion that the NT was literal. Not that it could be figurative...but he disagreed.

I think I did read that and I think he stated it after you brought him to a point of quiting. At this point he simply expressed his opinion.

As you should know, taking different approaches when it comes to debating doesnt mean said approach reflect the position of the debater.

The approach of ignorance for instance doesnt mean the debater is not actually aware of things. He is simply asking questions in order to show how the "opponent's" claims are unsubstanciated.

I am surprised this all seems strange to you.

If certain religious people had their way we would stop looking for answers because all we ever need to know is contained in an ancient text.Sign-Number-Two

Good. If we dont know everything about ancient civilisations can we say with certainty that there is nothing missing from the puzzle that we must assmeble in order to understand?

Most? Sorry but thats not "all". And even if we knew everything we would most probably know the most common uses or just some of them, and that is the result of not knowing everything about the history of those civilisations.

Unless you can claim complete knowledge you cant claim its easy to interpret a literary work.

I didnt say that this lack of complete knowledge completely kills everyone's arguments on literary analysis. Others do better and more complete research than others. Others are just better at interpreting, in the sense that they can think of many possible and plausible interpretations that someone else wont think of, some have covered more of the parallel philology of a text than others and thus have a more complete aspect of the language of an era and so on.

The lack of perfect knowledge doesnt mean that everything less than it is automatically rendered useless.

I mostly agree with him because what he says makes most sense to me and his interpretation of Greek is generally in agreement with my knowledge of modern and ancient greek more than any one in OT (although not wanting to "degrade" mindstorm who is another person who comments on language I havent read his blogs where he does interpret biblical passages in koine greek).

Teenaged

It doesn't matter how much one "studies" since as you said...we can't know. Unless you are accepting this evidence based purely on how you feel about the individual. But that would mean letting bias affect your acceptance of the credibility now wouldn't it?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Good. If we dont know everything about ancient civilisations can we say with certainty that there is nothing missing from the puzzle that we must assmeble in order to understand?

Most? Sorry but thats not "all". And even if we knew everything we would most probably know the most common uses or just some of them, and that is the result of not knowing everything about the history of those civilisations.

Unless you can claim complete knowledge you cant claim its easy to interpret a literary work.

I didnt say that this lack of complete knowledge completely kills everyone's arguments on literary analysis. Others do better and more complete research than others. Others are just better at interpreting, in the sense that they can think of many possible and plausible interpretations that someone else wont think of, some have covered more of the parallel philology of a text than others and thus have a more complete aspect of the language of an era and so on.

The lack of perfect knowledge doesnt mean that everything less than it is automatically rendered useless.

I mostly agree with him because what he says makes most sense to me and his interpretation of Greek is generally in agreement with my knowledge of modern and ancient greek more than any one in OT (although not wanting to "degrade" mindstorm who is another person who comments on language I havent read his blogs where he does interpret biblical passages in koine greek).

LJS9502_basic

It doesn't matter how much one "studies" since as you said...we can't know. Unless you are accepting this evidence based purely on how you feel about the individual. But that would mean letting bias affect your acceptance of the credibility now wouldn't it?

There may never be 100% certainty about these issues. Just like in science everything is prone to correction. I thought this is a no-brainer.

I didnt say it doesnt matter, and neither did I say that we cant know. I said that it isnt the only thing that matters (effort and time devotion has to be paired with abilities usually) and that we cant know 100%.

I dont accept the evidence as the final word on an issue. When I accept it I accept it as the best one currently of the ones I have encountered.

So do you agree with me now that simply studying a text doesnt necessarily grant one with aninfallible interpretation?

I disagree. Like I said the approaches to debating are many, and greyseal's is valid. Like I said if you dont like that kind of debating then say so.

I think I did read that and I think he stated it after you brought him to a point of quiting. At this point he simply expressed his opinion.

As you should know, taking different approaches when it comes to debating doesnt mean said approach reflect the position of the debater.

The approach of ignorance for instance doesnt mean the debater is not actually aware of things. He is simply asking questions in order to show how the "opponent's" claims are unsubstanciated.

I am surprised this all seems strange to you.

Teenaged

You can disagree with me but you could be wrong about the validity of his argument. You could be wrong about the validity of that particular debating technique.

As you should know taking a different approach to debating means one can argue either side of the discussion. Not that one can fob off all the substantial basis of an argument by asking questions without offering up any conclusive reason for the opposite to be true. It seems like you thik this debate works....

A. The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution.

B. They could have meant only for the militia.

Now if I see an argument like that....I'd want B to show why that could exists. What makes it the opposite. Don't just tell me it could...show me. That IS how debating is supposed to work. Though frankly using that technique makes for a weak arguement. Could isn't a very forceful way to get a point across.

It doesn't seem to show much familiarity or knowledge of the subject IMO.

But to sum up...you are saying an effective debating technique is to take your stance....tell you it could be the opposite and then tell you to prove it isn't? Nah...that really doesn't work for effective technique.

Of course.

There may never be 100% certainty about these issues. Just like in science everything is prone to correction. I thought this is a no-brainer.

I didnt say it doesnt matter, and neither did I say that we cant know. I said that it isnt the only thing that matters (effort and time devotion has to be paired with abilities usually) and that we cant know 100%.

I dont accept the evidence as the final word on an issue. When I accept it I accept it as the best one currently of the ones I have encountered.

So do you agree with me now that simply studying a text doesnt necessarily grant one with aninfallible interpretation?

Teenaged

You may disagree. But debating is supposed to more than one person say you could be wrong. In fact...that really isn't debating. To debate you have to have some substance to the debate. Otherwise...I could just look at your post. Say you could be wrong about x....and that would mean I effectively ended the point you made? Well then in that case....

You can disagree with me but you could be wrong about the validity of his argument. You could be wrong about the validity of that particular debating technique.

As you should know taking a different approach to debating means one can argue either side of the discussion. Not that one can fob off all the substantial basis of an argument by asking questions without offering up any conclusive reason for the opposite to be true. It seems like you thik this debate works....

A. The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution.

B. They could have meant only for the militia.

Now if I see an argument like that....I'd want B to show why that could exists. What makes it the opposite. Don't just tell me it could...show me. That IS how debating is supposed to work. Though frankly using that technique makes for a weak arguement. Could isn't a very forceful way to get a point across.

It doesn't seem to show much familiarity or knowledge of the subject IMO.

LJS9502_basic

At the least all he did was try to make you substanciate your opinion which you neglected to do in the first place. The first affirmative must present a solid case, not simply a conclusion. If anything, greyseal tried to fill a gap you left, probably because he thought you may not be able to fill it.

What argument? A mere statement isnt an argument, just like asking a simple question isnt necessarily a claim. I dont believe I should have to explain this.

Oh you are so very wrong about that. With a few "coulds" you can amply show the ignorance of the "opponent" when they simply cant refute them. That means they dont have a case. Unless of course the "coulds" are irrelevant to the first affirmative claim. But I dont think greyseal's "coulds" were irrelevant. Do you think they were?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Of course.

There may never be 100% certainty about these issues. Just like in science everything is prone to correction. I thought this is a no-brainer.

I didnt say it doesnt matter, and neither did I say that we cant know. I said that it isnt the only thing that matters (effort and time devotion has to be paired with abilities usually) and that we cant know 100%.

I dont accept the evidence as the final word on an issue. When I accept it I accept it as the best one currently of the ones I have encountered.

So do you agree with me now that simply studying a text doesnt necessarily grant one with aninfallible interpretation?

LJS9502_basic

I asked the question because thats how this convo started and I am afraid we'll get very off track.

Well he wasnt just saying that you could be wrong. He presented specific scenarios which first have to be refuted in order for your opinion to be considered valid or preferrable.

At the least all he did was try to make you substanciate your opinion which you neglected to do in the first place. The first affirmative must present a solid case, not simply a conclusion. If anything, greyseal tried to fill a gap you left, probably because he thought you may not be able to fill it.

What argument? A mere statement isnt an argument, just like asking a simple question isnt necessarily a claim. I dont believe I should have to explain this.

Oh you are so very wrong about that. With a few "coulds" you can amply show the ignorance of the "opponent" when they simply cant refute them. That means they dont have a case. Unless of course the "coulds" are irrelevant to the first affirmative claim. But I dont think greyseal's "coulds" were irrelevant. Do you think they were?

Teenaged

See a rebuttal needs some backing. One's stressed opinion is not a rebuttal. It doesn't actually negate an argument if one person presents evidence for their stance vis a vis someone's rebuttal being...well it could be the opposite. Well maybe it could be....but you do have to prove that in more than just opinion.

(it literally looks like sentence salad)iaosoir

ROFL

Whoever you are ilu.

That was an awesome comparison.

I have a few things to say. I'm not exactly sure why I am. Let this be a rare event for me. Concerning the OP (which appears to be a troll topic; if it isn't, well, let's just say I'm not surprised): Atheism is not an entity that answers questions. It merely (roughly) posits that no god exists. Whatever this "essence" you are speaking of is completely vacuous as you do not describe it in depth and because it is a ridiculously ludicrous and contrived extra step in actual inquiry of questions regarding the universe. There does not need to be an "essence" (assuming you mean god or some supernatural guiding force). And if you are going to make the step of claiming there is an essence, by your reasoning for its existence in the first place, we must then ask where this "essence" came from. So we should save ourselves the trouble and just remain agnostic towards this invisible "essence". Please. Thank you. Also, everything was spontaneously formed from nothingness. The problem is, you have your understanding of nothingness completely wrong. I recommend studying physics. Now the main reason I'm posting here is to ask a simple question: why does everyone continue to attempt to debate with LJ? He does the exact same thing in every thread where he "debates"...misrepresent your position, throw out random sentences that have no relevance (it literally looks like sentence salad), cannot hold a linear rational debate whatsoever, and the list goes on really. It gives me a headache and drops a few points off my IQ. You guys are just wasting your time. I swear LJ is the one of the most elaborate and successful trolls of the internetz. If not...well, I feel nothing but pity for him. Ciao.iaosoir

Well, I can proudly say that I've kicked my debating LJ addiction. I hope I don't have withdrawal syptoms tonight or fall off the wagon tomorrow. :lol:

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Well he wasnt just saying that you could be wrong. He presented specific scenarios which first have to be refuted in order for your opinion to be considered valid or preferrable.

At the least all he did was try to make you substanciate your opinion which you neglected to do in the first place. The first affirmative must present a solid case, not simply a conclusion. If anything, greyseal tried to fill a gap you left, probably because he thought you may not be able to fill it.

What argument? A mere statement isnt an argument, just like asking a simple question isnt necessarily a claim. I dont believe I should have to explain this.

Oh you are so very wrong about that. With a few "coulds" you can amply show the ignorance of the "opponent" when they simply cant refute them. That means they dont have a case. Unless of course the "coulds" are irrelevant to the first affirmative claim. But I dont think greyseal's "coulds" were irrelevant. Do you think they were?

LJS9502_basic

See a rebuttal needs some backing. One's stressed opinion is not a rebuttal. It doesn't actually negate an argument if one person presents evidence for their stance vis a vis someone's rebuttal being...well it could be the opposite. Well maybe it could be....but you do have to prove that in more than just opinion.

When you simply just state your opinion without a rationale behind it (I emphasise: initially, I know you later on tried to explain your rationale) dont expect the other person to offer more in return. Your first affirmative claim lacked any sort of substanciation. Presenting the alternatives as something to refute is a simple way os eliciting that substanciation from you.

A yes, the non-believer's bias card...

If you think greyseal as a nonbeliever is biased you should have ended the debate from the beginning. Why didnt you? Thats a very interesting question...

What you think the OT and NT are supposed to be taught as is not saying much. Repeating your opinion over and over doesnt constitute an argument. Very simple.

(RED) And that applies to what you have been doing. As for the rest of your paragraph, you completely lost me.

[QUOTE="iaosoir"]I have a few things to say. I'm not exactly sure why I am. Let this be a rare event for me. Concerning the OP (which appears to be a troll topic; if it isn't, well, let's just say I'm not surprised): Atheism is not an entity that answers questions. It merely (roughly) posits that no god exists. Whatever this "essence" you are speaking of is completely vacuous as you do not describe it in depth and because it is a ridiculously ludicrous and contrived extra step in actual inquiry of questions regarding the universe. There does not need to be an "essence" (assuming you mean god or some supernatural guiding force). And if you are going to make the step of claiming there is an essence, by your reasoning for its existence in the first place, we must then ask where this "essence" came from. So we should save ourselves the trouble and just remain agnostic towards this invisible "essence". Please. Thank you. Also, everything was spontaneously formed from nothingness. The problem is, you have your understanding of nothingness completely wrong. I recommend studying physics. Now the main reason I'm posting here is to ask a simple question: why does everyone continue to attempt to debate with LJ? He does the exact same thing in every thread where he "debates"...misrepresent your position, throw out random sentences that have no relevance (it literally looks like sentence salad), cannot hold a linear rational debate whatsoever, and the list goes on really. It gives me a headache and drops a few points off my IQ. You guys are just wasting your time. I swear LJ is the one of the most elaborate and successful trolls of the internetz. If not...well, I feel nothing but pity for him. Ciao.GreySeal9

Well, I can proudly say that I've kicked my debating LJ addiction. I hope I don't have withdrawal syptoms tonight or fall off the wagon tomorrow. :lol:

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="iaosoir"]I have a few things to say. I'm not exactly sure why I am. Let this be a rare event for me. Concerning the OP (which appears to be a troll topic; if it isn't, well, let's just say I'm not surprised): Atheism is not an entity that answers questions. It merely (roughly) posits that no god exists. Whatever this "essence" you are speaking of is completely vacuous as you do not describe it in depth and because it is a ridiculously ludicrous and contrived extra step in actual inquiry of questions regarding the universe. There does not need to be an "essence" (assuming you mean god or some supernatural guiding force). And if you are going to make the step of claiming there is an essence, by your reasoning for its existence in the first place, we must then ask where this "essence" came from. So we should save ourselves the trouble and just remain agnostic towards this invisible "essence". Please. Thank you. Also, everything was spontaneously formed from nothingness. The problem is, you have your understanding of nothingness completely wrong. I recommend studying physics. Now the main reason I'm posting here is to ask a simple question: why does everyone continue to attempt to debate with LJ? He does the exact same thing in every thread where he "debates"...misrepresent your position, throw out random sentences that have no relevance (it literally looks like sentence salad), cannot hold a linear rational debate whatsoever, and the list goes on really. It gives me a headache and drops a few points off my IQ. You guys are just wasting your time. I swear LJ is the one of the most elaborate and successful trolls of the internetz. If not...well, I feel nothing but pity for him. Ciao.Teenaged

Well, I can proudly say that I've kicked my debating LJ addiction. I hope I don't have withdrawal syptoms tonight or fall off the wagon tomorrow. :lol:

I cannot help you. You must deal with your own addictions. :P

*walks into the distance as Teenaged follows like a abandoned puppy*

He doesnt have to present anything supporting his case when you initially hadnt either.

When you simply just state your opinion without a rationale behind it (I emphasise: initially, I know you later on tried to explain your rationale) dont expect the other person to offer more in return. Your first affirmative claim lacked any sort of substanciation. Presenting the alternatives as something to refute is a simple way os eliciting that substanciation from you.

A yes, the non-believer's bias card...

If you think greyseal as a nonbeliever is biased you should have ended the debate from the beginning. Why didnt you? Thats a very interesting question...

What you think the OT and NT are supposed to be taught as is not saying much. Repeating your opinion over and over doesnt constitute an argument. Very simple.

(RED) And that applies to what you have been doing. As for the rest of your paragraph, you completely lost me.

Teenaged

Edit: Checked the red. Well no. I gave him a source. The fact that he didn't choose to use it does not mean I didn't give a source.;)

That's wrong as well. I did give him a link to what I was discussing. He changed the topic to the NT so he did have the burden of proof for his stance. To be sure I think he was biased against it since I did give that to him as evidence of what is written. He didn't even discuss that. Just kept on repeating himself. You know when I don't use quick quote....I can't see red. So posting that doesn't do much as I have no idea what you are on about.

Edit: Checked the red. Well no. I gave him a source. The fact that he didn't choose to use it does not mean I didn't give a source.;)

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]OT not NT miracles. Cite my sources? I don't exist only online you know. A little study is not wrong.GreySeal9

What exactly is the difference between OT and NT miracles as far as literal interpretation and symbolism are concerned?

As you see when Greyseal first entered the debate you had already mentioned the distinction between the OT and the NT when it comes to miracles.

Dont make me check your posts again for you. I shouldnt have to do that.

The link came after almost a page. I said that you initially hadnt substanciated your claim, ie before the link but even a link doesnt necesserily grant substanciation if its inadequate or irrelevant.

When you give a source you should be able to point whuch part is relevant and how it is relevant. Simply throwing links here and there doesnt mean you accomplished anything. You remind me of Snipes.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Of course.

There may never be 100% certainty about these issues. Just like in science everything is prone to correction. I thought this is a no-brainer.

I didnt say it doesnt matter, and neither did I say that we cant know. I said that it isnt the only thing that matters (effort and time devotion has to be paired with abilities usually) and that we cant know 100%.

I dont accept the evidence as the final word on an issue. When I accept it I accept it as the best one currently of the ones I have encountered.

So do you agree with me now that simply studying a text doesnt necessarily grant one with aninfallible interpretation?

Teenaged

I asked the question because thats how this convo started and I am afraid we'll get very off track.

I dont have all day.

As you see when Greyseal first entered the debate you had already mentioned the distinction between the OT and the NT when it comes to miracles.

Dont make me check your posts again for you. I shouldnt have to do that.

The link came after almost a page. I said that you initially hadnt substanciated your claim, ie before the link but even a link doesnt necesserily grant substanciation if its inadequate or irrelevant.

When you give a source you should be able to point whuch part is relevant and how it is relevant. Simply throwing links here and there doesnt mean you accomplished anything. You remind me of Snipes.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

As you see when Greyseal first entered the debate you had already mentioned the distinction between the OT and the NT when it comes to miracles.

Dont make me check your posts again for you. I shouldnt have to do that.

The link came after almost a page. I said that you initially hadnt substanciated your claim, ie before the link but even a link doesnt necesserily grant substanciation if its inadequate or irrelevant.

When you give a source you should be able to point whuch part is relevant and how it is relevant. Simply throwing links here and there doesnt mean you accomplished anything. You remind me of Snipes.

LJS9502_basic

There was no change of subject nor anything entirely new brought to the table. It was all very relevant and even already mentioned by you.

So what if he started debating with you starting from a post you made to another person? Where are you even going with this? Did you or did you not make a distinction betweem miracles in the NT and miracles of the OT as far as their interpretation goes? Thats what matters since thats what Greyseal started arguing with you.

I was going to reply straight to the OP but i decided to read the entire thread instead.

Anyways this debate about whether the OT or NT is literal or not can not be proven. Unless you can go back in time and ask the writers of the books in the bible their intention. Other than that, there is no real way we can determine how to accurately interpret the bible. And even if they were meant to be taken literally we know base on facts that some these supernatural events(such as the flood) did not occur.

Although I hate taken sides LJ is certainly is not in a factual position with his claim unless he somehow proves that the OT is not to be taken literal. Reading the sourcse did not prove anything, all it talk about was how symbols and imagery in the bible represented different analogies. And as I said the only way to prove claims like what LJ said and his sources is to find out what the original writers intended which is impossible since you cant ask them.

Thus NT HAD been mentioned.

There was no change of subject nor anything entirely new brought to the table. It was all very relevant and even already mentioned by you.

So what if he started debating with you starting from a post you made to another person? Where are you even going with this? Did you or did you not make a distinction betweem miracles in the NT and miracles of the OT as far as their interpretation goes? Thats what matters since thats what Greyseal started arguing with you.

Teenaged

I was going to reply straight to the OP but i decided to read the entire thread instead.

Anyways this debate about whether the OT or NT is literal or not can not be proven. Unless you can go back in time and ask the writers of the books in the bible their intention. Other than that, there is no real way we can determine how to accurately interpret the bible. And even if they were meant to be taken literally we know base on facts that some these supernatural events(such as the flood) did not occur.

Although I hate taken sides LJ is certainly is not in a factual position with his claim unless he somehow proves that the OT is not to be taken literal. Reading the sourcse did not prove anything, all it talk about was how symbols and imagery in the bible represented different analogies. And as I said the only way to prove claims like what LJ said and his sources is to find out what the original writers intended which is impossible since you cant ask them.

AngelNeo00

I was going to reply straight to the OP but i decided to read the entire thread instead.

Anyways this debate about whether the OT or NT is literal or not can not be proven. Unless you can go back in time and ask the writers of the books in the bible their intention. Other than that, there is no real way we can determine how to accurately interpret the bible. And even if they were meant to be taken literally we know base on facts that some these supernatural events(such as the flood) did not occur.

Although I hate taken sides LJ is certainly is not in a factual position with his claim unless he somehow proves that the OT is not to be taken literal. Reading the sourcse did not prove anything, all it talk about was how symbols and imagery in the bible represented different analogies. And as I said the only way to prove claims like what LJ said and his sources is to find out what the original writers intended which is impossible since you cant ask them.

AngelNeo00

If I indeed see effort and thought put into it then it deserves respect as an argument.

Currently, what LJS says only deserves respect as an opinion. Nothing more.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Thus NT HAD been mentioned.

There was no change of subject nor anything entirely new brought to the table. It was all very relevant and even already mentioned by you.

So what if he started debating with you starting from a post you made to another person? Where are you even going with this? Did you or did you not make a distinction betweem miracles in the NT and miracles of the OT as far as their interpretation goes? Thats what matters since thats what Greyseal started arguing with you.

LJS9502_basic

It was in your post. Very simple.

Answer my question: did you or did you not make a distinction between the miracles of NT and the miracles of OT as far as their interpretation goes in the post Greyseal quoted?

[QUOTE="AngelNeo00"]

I was going to reply straight to the OP but i decided to read the entire thread instead.

Anyways this debate about whether the OT or NT is literal or not can not be proven. Unless you can go back in time and ask the writers of the books in the bible their intention. Other than that, there is no real way we can determine how to accurately interpret the bible. And even if they were meant to be taken literally we know base on facts that some these supernatural events(such as the flood) did not occur.

Although I hate taken sides LJ is certainly is not in a factual position with his claim unless he somehow proves that the OT is not to be taken literal. Reading the sourcse did not prove anything, all it talk about was how symbols and imagery in the bible represented different analogies. And as I said the only way to prove claims like what LJ said and his sources is to find out what the original writers intended which is impossible since you cant ask them.

Teenaged

If I indeed see effort and thought put into it then it deserves respect as an argument.

Currently, what LJS says only deserves respect as an opinion. Nothing more.

Hey atheists, if the Earth was created billions of years ago, then how come it's only 2011?!

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Thus NT HAD been mentioned.

There was no change of subject nor anything entirely new brought to the table. It was all very relevant and even already mentioned by you.

So what if he started debating with you starting from a post you made to another person? Where are you even going with this? Did you or did you not make a distinction betweem miracles in the NT and miracles of the OT as far as their interpretation goes? Thats what matters since thats what Greyseal started arguing with you.

Teenaged

It was in your post. Very simple.

Answer my question: did you or did you not make a distinction between the miracles of NT and the miracles of OT as far as their interpretation goes in the post Greyseal quoted?

[QUOTE="AngelNeo00"]

I was going to reply straight to the OP but i decided to read the entire thread instead.

Anyways this debate about whether the OT or NT is literal or not can not be proven. Unless you can go back in time and ask the writers of the books in the bible their intention. Other than that, there is no real way we can determine how to accurately interpret the bible. And even if they were meant to be taken literally we know base on facts that some these supernatural events(such as the flood) did not occur.

Although I hate taken sides LJ is certainly is not in a factual position with his claim unless he somehow proves that the OT is not to be taken literal. Reading the sourcse did not prove anything, all it talk about was how symbols and imagery in the bible represented different analogies. And as I said the only way to prove claims like what LJ said and his sources is to find out what the original writers intended which is impossible since you cant ask them.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AngelNeo00"]

I was going to reply straight to the OP but i decided to read the entire thread instead.

Anyways this debate about whether the OT or NT is literal or not can not be proven. Unless you can go back in time and ask the writers of the books in the bible their intention. Other than that, there is no real way we can determine how to accurately interpret the bible. And even if they were meant to be taken literally we know base on facts that some these supernatural events(such as the flood) did not occur.

Although I hate taken sides LJ is certainly is not in a factual position with his claim unless he somehow proves that the OT is not to be taken literal. Reading the sourcse did not prove anything, all it talk about was how symbols and imagery in the bible represented different analogies. And as I said the only way to prove claims like what LJ said and his sources is to find out what the original writers intended which is impossible since you cant ask them.

AngelNeo00

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not by me. By the dude with the long name. And how many times did I tell GreySeal that was his argument? Four or five I'd wager. Ah...what miracles in the OT? I never discussed OT miracles in this thread. I think maybe you are confused. Yes...GS started arguing and I repeatedly told him that wasn't the discussion... So that means he wasn't paying attention from the start to my posts.

LJS9502_basic

It was in your post. Very simple.

Answer my question: did you or did you not make a distinction between the miracles of NT and the miracles of OT as far as their interpretation goes in the post Greyseal quoted?

Can you answer my question?

Its a very simple one. Why do you keep evading it?

Do you find a difference between the miracles of the NT and the miracles of the OT?

Its a public forum. People will quote you at any time and discuss anything that is in your posts. If you dont want to debate something politely decline to continue and ignore them if they go on. It takes two...

And yet you kept going with greyseal and only after several posts you repeated that that this is not a discussion you wish to have. Sounds strange to me.

[QUOTE="AngelNeo00"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I didn't say the OT is not to be taken literally. I said it's filled with symbolism...and I did provide a link for that. You did say you read the entire thread?LJS9502_basic

I read your link. All it provides is what supposed scholars believe to be symbols in the bible. And as I said before you can create symbolic meaning out of anything but it doesnt make those symbolic meaning the true meaning that was suppose to be originally intended by the people who wrote the books.