View Poll Results: Agree of Disagree ...discuss?

Voters
63. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agree

    27 42.86%
  • Disagree

    21 33.33%
  • Who is Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard?

    5 7.94%
  • other

    10 15.87%
Page 34 of 34 FirstFirst ... 24323334
Results 331 to 340 of 340

Thread: Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

  1. #331
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,526

    Re: Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Because what is described in the Bible is not a major flood, it is a world-wide flood. It describes all the mountains being covered, which cannot have happened unless the entire planet was underwater.

    So do try again.
    What part of to them it was the whole world are you not understanding? When they wrote it, the world was flooding.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #332
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    What part of to them it was the whole world are you not understanding? When they wrote it, the world was flooding.
    Wait, let's take a step back because clearly you don't understand the point of this entire thing. The Bible is the only source you have for information on your God. As such, it's been stated that the Bible is generally historically accurate. However, the only two supernatural events in the Bible which are generally amenable to objective evaluation are the creation story and the flood story. You admit that the creation story is a myth, now you're arguing that the flood story is a myth, why are we supposed to take any of the things in the Bible that cannot be tested and objectively verified as true if it gets every single case where we can test it wrong? I happen to agree with you, neither one happened as described or even close thereto, hence why shouldn't we just toss out the Bible as a worthwhile source of information on anything supernatural, including the existence of God?

    I thought you understood that's what we were doing.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  3. #333
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    It's true, Blackdog. Even taking into account possible scientific theories, such as meteor strikes that would cause massive tsunamies, or permanent flooding caused by melting glaciers from the end of the last ice ages, the flooding still affects coastal areas and not high terrains. Unless there are flood myths from cultures in high altitudes you know of that I don't?
    The problem is, most of the elements from the Hebrew flood tradition came from elsewhere. We have portions that were just copied almost verbatim from other sources, the whole story of Noah's nudity came out of a Hindu source that we can prove was written long before the Hebrews ever existed as a distinct sect.

    It's just more proof that the Bible is an unreliable source.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #334
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,526

    Re: Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Wait, let's take a step back because clearly you don't understand the point of this entire thing.
    I understand the point perfectly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    The Bible is the only source you have for information on your God. As such, it's been stated that the Bible is generally historically accurate.
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    However, the only two supernatural events in the Bible which are generally amenable to objective evaluation are the creation story and the flood story.
    This is not true at all. Many MANY facts in the Bible have been proven to be historically accurate. Such as (this is an example, so please don't get caught up in it.)

    Starting in 1929, Dr. John Garstang, excavated the ruins of ancient Jericho. His discoveries corresponded remarkably with the Biblical account. Jericho, he found, had a double wall, with houses built across the two walls. This explains how Rahab's house could have been built upon a wall. He learned that the wall was destroyed by some kind of violent convulsion such as that described in the Bible, and that when the wall feel that it fell outward, down the hillside, or as the Bible says, it fell down flat. Had the wall been destroyed by the battering rams of an enemy army, the walls would have fallen inward instead of outward. Furthermore, the city had been burned. Once again, the spade of archaeology has established the accuracy of the Bible. - http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVa...OfTheBible.htm

    No one here is talking about any mythology, we are talking historical fact in most of the Old and New Testament.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    You admit that the creation story is a myth, now you're arguing that the flood story is a myth, why are we supposed to take any of the things in the Bible that cannot be tested and objectively verified as true if it gets every single case where we can test it wrong?
    I am not certain if you are just missing something or if I am not being clear? I did not say it was a myth, I don't think it was at all. I said the author of the creation epic was writing it figuratively, I did not say anything about it being mythology.

    5000 years ago the people did not have the language to explain the things they were seeing about creation. They say it was through dreams which means it was up to them to try to explain what they were seeing. So open space as we understand it becomes "formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep" which from that long ago makes perfect sense from their perspective. If you are a serious student of history, this understanding is the most important to interpret anything that old with any kind of accuracy. Just ask any anthropologist, or anthropology major.

    The problem is you refuse to see it from the historical perspective of someone with no understanding of the world as we know it, or had the language to explain it in our modern terms. Hence a "global flood" as in their whole world, not the literal world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I happen to agree with you, neither one happened as described or even close thereto, hence why shouldn't we just toss out the Bible as a worthwhile source of information on anything supernatural, including the existence of God?
    I don't agree with you at all. You are completely misrepresenting my thoughts or the words I typed.

    I have said nothing about the existence of God, or anything even close. I am speaking as a former anthropology major and logical historian.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    II thought you understood that's what we were doing.
    I understand your perspective is wrong. I just can't make it any clearer.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 08-24-12 at 12:43 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  5. #335
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,056

    Re: Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Starting in 1929, Dr. John Garstang, excavated the ruins of ancient Jericho. His discoveries corresponded remarkably with the Biblical account. Jericho, he found, had a double wall, with houses built across the two walls. This explains how Rahab's house could have been built upon a wall. He learned that the wall was destroyed by some kind of violent convulsion such as that described in the Bible, and that when the wall feel that it fell outward, down the hillside, or as the Bible says, it fell down flat. Had the wall been destroyed by the battering rams of an enemy army, the walls would have fallen inward instead of outward. Furthermore, the city had been burned. Once again, the spade of archaeology has established the accuracy of the Bible. - The Historical Accuracy of the Bible
    You obviously don't understand how archeology works. Finding a place named Jericho mentioned in a book is not proof of "many many bible facts" being true. It's proof that a place named Jericho existed. Now allow if you will a bit of common sense. Let's say 5,000 years from now a city named London is found and they find all the remains of the city mentioned in Harry Potter. Including a train station. Does that make the "claims" of Harry Potter true? No. It means that there really is a place called London. Which is not contested by anyone.

    Nobody contests that there is place named Egypt. We contest that Hebrews came out of it and spent 40 years in a desert then split open entire seas to cross to where they lived. Welcome to logic 101. How may we help you?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #336
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,526

    Re: Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    You obviously don't understand how archeology works. Finding a place named Jericho mentioned in a book is not proof of "many many bible facts" being true. It's proof that a place named Jericho existed. Now allow if you will a bit of common sense. Let's say 5,000 years from now a city named London is found and they find all the remains of the city mentioned in Harry Potter. Including a train station. Does that make the "claims" of Harry Potter true? No. It means that there really is a place called London. Which is not contested by anyone.

    Nobody contests that there is place named Egypt. We contest that Hebrews came out of it and spent 40 years in a desert then split open entire seas to cross to where they lived. Welcome to logic 101. How may we help you?
    It was one example. And yes I do, nice you ignored the rest.

    I refuse to respond to the willfully ignorant anymore.

    Have a good one Hatuey.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  7. #337
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    I refuse to respond to the willfully ignorant anymore.
    Meaning you refuse to respond to those who have beat you at your own game. Don't worry, you're painfully transparent.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #338
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

    [QUOTE=Blackdog;1060831359]I understand the point perfectly.


    This is not true at all. Many MANY facts in the Bible have been proven to be historically accurate. Such as (this is an example, so please don't get caught up in it.)
    Yes, you are right, there are some portions of the Bible that contain many historical facts, mostly because they are just reporting history. Most of the last books in the Old Testament are just records of Hebrew life and do contain a lot of actual facts. No one disputes that However, that doesn't, in any way, prove that any of the supernatural events or stories actually happened.

    My sister told me a long time ago that horror author Dean Koontz, in one of his books, mentioned the street I grew up on in one of his books. That is a demonstrable historic accuracy, that street really does exist. However, that doesn't prove that any of the horrible things that he wrote about in that book were real. Likewise, Stephen King writes about a lot of real places in New England, that doesn't mean anything supernatural he records are real.

    Starting in 1929, Dr. John Garstang, excavated the ruins of ancient Jericho. His discoveries corresponded remarkably with the Biblical account. Jericho, he found, had a double wall, with houses built across the two walls. This explains how Rahab's house could have been built upon a wall. He learned that the wall was destroyed by some kind of violent convulsion such as that described in the Bible, and that when the wall feel that it fell outward, down the hillside, or as the Bible says, it fell down flat. Had the wall been destroyed by the battering rams of an enemy army, the walls would have fallen inward instead of outward. Furthermore, the city had been burned. Once again, the spade of archaeology has established the accuracy of the Bible. - The Historical Accuracy of the Bible
    You do need to realize the sad state of Biblical archaeology through the first half of the 20th century. In many cases, you had archaeologists going out into the field in the Middle East, finding a site, and instead of actually figuring out what the site was, they turned to the Bible as a guide book and declared that they had found whatever happened to be closest to it. Even Biblical Archaeology Review has come out and said people need to take these claims with a grain of salt, many of the supposed discoveries have not been independently verified as being actual Biblical sites, they were just assumed to be.

    No one here is talking about any mythology, we are talking historical fact in most of the Old and New Testament.
    I've been talking about mythology, you're just ignoring that discussion.

    I am not certain if you are just missing something or if I am not being clear? I did not say it was a myth, I don't think it was at all. I said the author of the creation epic was writing it figuratively, I did not say anything about it being mythology.
    There's nothing figurative in the language of Genesis, it is written descriptively, in chronological order. On this day, this happened. Just don't try to compare the two creation stories, they just don't match up.

    5000 years ago the people did not have the language to explain the things they were seeing about creation. They say it was through dreams which means it was up to them to try to explain what they were seeing. So open space as we understand it becomes "formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep" which from that long ago makes perfect sense from their perspective. If you are a serious student of history, this understanding is the most important to interpret anything that old with any kind of accuracy. Just ask any anthropologist, or anthropology major.
    They didn't see anything about creation, they were supposedly recounting a story told to them by revelation from God. You're suggesting we ought to take any of these stories seriously when they simply do not match up with what we observe and understand about reality and ultimately, they're just ridiculous to scientifically-literate eyes.

    The problem is you refuse to see it from the historical perspective of someone with no understanding of the world as we know it, or had the language to explain it in our modern terms. Hence a "global flood" as in their whole world, not the literal world.
    No, I'm reading the story as it is actually written, I'm not editing out the silly parts. Now while I will absolutely agree with you that the actual flood upon which the Noachian myth is based was likely a conglomeration of local floods (and I can go into detail on the dating of those floods if you want), the story as written, the giant ark (which was unseaworthy), holding all the animals (which wouldn't fit), for 40 days and 40 nights (which is absurd), landing on Mt. Ararat (the flood waters wouldn't reach that high), is ridiculous.

    Further, if you want to go the route that primitive people were ignorant of nature, which I will certainly agree with, and simply phrased their myths in terms of what they knew, I'll agree with you and suggest that God is simply an example of the same thing happening. Just as we know the worldwide flood never happened, there's no reason to think God is real.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  9. #339
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,526

    Re: Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Meaning you refuse to respond to those who have beat you at your own game. Don't worry, you're painfully transparent.
    Not really, but you can believe what you like if it makes you feel better, lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  10. #340
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,526

    Re: Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Yes, you are right, there are some portions of the Bible that contain many historical facts, mostly because they are just reporting history. Most of the last books in the Old Testament are just records of Hebrew life and do contain a lot of actual facts. No one disputes that However, that doesn't, in any way, prove that any of the supernatural events or stories actually happened.
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    My sister told me a long time ago that horror author Dean Koontz, in one of his books, mentioned the street I grew up on in one of his books. That is a demonstrable historic accuracy, that street really does exist. However, that doesn't prove that any of the horrible things that he wrote about in that book were real. Likewise, Stephen King writes about a lot of real places in New England, that doesn't mean anything supernatural he records are real.
    Fact: These are known works of fiction by known writers of said fiction.
    Fact: You cannot say the same about the books of the Bible with any level of certainty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    You do need to realize the sad state of Biblical archaeology through the first half of the 20th century. In many cases, you had archaeologists going out into the field in the Middle East, finding a site, and instead of actually figuring out what the site was, they turned to the Bible as a guide book and declared that they had found whatever happened to be closest to it. Even Biblical Archaeology Review has come out and said people need to take these claims with a grain of salt, many of the supposed discoveries have not been independently verified as being actual Biblical sites, they were just assumed to be.
    I understand this as a similar situation happened with the city of Troy among other ancient and classical archaeological research that has nothing to do with the Bible.

    Now tell me something I don't know?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I've been talking about mythology, you're just ignoring that discussion.
    You asked for historical accuracy and that's it, that's what I replied to. The only thing I am ignoring is you trying to put words in my mouth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    There's nothing figurative in the language of Genesis, it is written descriptively, in chronological order. On this day, this happened. Just don't try to compare the two creation stories, they just don't match up.
    Then answer these questions...

    How long is a day to the supposed creator of the universe?

    Who wrote the different chapters of Genesis? We know it was a few people do to the difference in writing styles.

    How did they know plants came before animals? Or fish before land animals?

    You see, we just don't know. You assume based on? I would assume that plants came before the sun? How do we know the writer saw it that way, or his understanding was like ours?

    To many questions with no answers. Until the end of time they will never be answered. So we are speculating based on what we know. I know a little more about the Bible than you. This however does not make my speculation any better. So take it for what it's worth and maybe learn a little.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    They didn't see anything about creation, they were supposedly recounting a story told to them by revelation from God.
    According to what we know, this is accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    You're suggesting we ought to take any of these stories seriously when they simply do not match up with what we observe and understand about reality and ultimately, they're just ridiculous to scientifically-literate eyes.
    I already covered this above but let me say... Until you can answer the questions above with something better than "they got one part out of place." it is speculation you are trying to pass as fact. I am saying either is reasonable because no one knows. Until we have time travel, we are stuck guessing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No, I'm reading the story as it is actually written, I'm not editing out the silly parts. Now while I will absolutely agree with you that the actual flood upon which the Noachian myth is based was likely a conglomeration of local floods (and I can go into detail on the dating of those floods if you want), the story as written, the giant ark (which was unseaworthy), holding all the animals (which wouldn't fit), for 40 days and 40 nights (which is absurd), landing on Mt. Ararat (the flood waters wouldn't reach that high), is ridiculous.
    The Ark was not sea worthy? That's a joke right? It has been shown to be sea worthy, literally....

    The almost-finished vessel you see pictured above is actually Huibers' second whack at making an ark of his own. The first was a half-sized replica, though this time the Dutch construction company director decided to go whole hog. It's even seaworthy, and Huibers plans for his ark to float along the Thames in London ahead of the 2012 Olympics.

    Though we really have no way of knowing, Biblical scholars peg Noah's Ark as being somewhere around 300 cubits in length, 50 wide and 30 high. In feet, that translates into a vessel 450 feet long -- or about the same as a Romulan Bird-of-Prey -- and 75 feet wide and 45 high.
    - Johan's Ark: Man Dreams Of Apocalypse, Builds Functional (It Floats) Noah's Ark Replica | Geekologie

    Now as for fire, lol. Who knows?

    The animals would have fit in it without real issue.

    We don't know for certain which mount was Ararat, we just don't know. So again like me you are speculating. So lets cover facts only...

    Fact: We know a great flood happened in the area.
    Fact: We know the Ark floats and is sea worthy no less.
    Fact: The thing is definitely big enough to take animals of any size from the area of the Middle East.

    So where does this leave your speculation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Further, if you want to go the route that primitive people were ignorant of nature, which I will certainly agree with, and simply phrased their myths in terms of what they knew, I'll agree with you and suggest that God is simply an example of the same thing happening. Just as we know the worldwide flood never happened, there's no reason to think God is real.
    I did not say anyone was ignorant of nature???? PLEASE STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

    I said they did not have the understanding we do today of many things AS WE DO as modern men. They also did not have the language to say what they saw according to again OUR understanding.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Page 34 of 34 FirstFirst ... 24323334

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •