tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7367575757181187773..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Applying Data and Information Quality Principles To The BibleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39825868799897266392008-10-20T00:23:00.000-04:002008-10-20T00:23:00.000-04:00I'm going to move on and finish my next article. ...I'm going to move on and finish my next article. See you then.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77688334084164135052008-10-18T18:18:00.000-04:002008-10-18T18:18:00.000-04:00Lee, it was totally my fault for not being more sp...Lee, it was totally my fault for not being more specific.<BR/><BR/>Zilch, if Lee is God does that make you his prophet? <BR/><BR/>That's a good gig, you know; money, power, hot chicks and zero accountability.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80257426646145806052008-10-18T07:11:00.000-04:002008-10-18T07:11:00.000-04:00tigg- lee randolph is God. Just sayin'.tigg- lee randolph is God. Just sayin'.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36881659291914590992008-10-18T06:28:00.000-04:002008-10-18T06:28:00.000-04:00Hi tigg,sorry, I misunderstood. I thought your pos...Hi tigg,<BR/>sorry, I misunderstood. I thought your post was directed at me, and thought it was uncharacteristically incoherent, I looked up your profile, saw that you were smart but may be just 'role-playing'.<BR/><BR/>I was confused, but it happens!<BR/>;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36639109756909710062008-10-18T03:56:00.000-04:002008-10-18T03:56:00.000-04:00Lee, the "barking dog test" was actually introduce...Lee, the "barking dog test" was actually introduced by Rev. Phil.<BR/>(In his post at 7:35 AM 10/16/08)<BR/><BR/>I should have directed my previous post to him and I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.<BR/><BR/>I agree that that there is no comparison between your analysis and evaluating animals by the sounds that they make. I believe that this was a straw man argument. (And that's really the point I was trying to make.)<BR/><BR/>As far as being ridiculous goes, hey, I'm a large stuffed animal with a big rubber head - and I still make more sense than your average fundy!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75297267169920976742008-10-18T01:58:00.000-04:002008-10-18T01:58:00.000-04:00and tigg,according to your profile, you seem to un...and tigg,<BR/>according to your profile, you seem to understand chaos theory, and you say you like to play devils advocate.<BR/><BR/>If you decide to play devils advocate with me thats fine, I enjoy a challenge and a well thought out discussion. I view it as a game of strategy, but please don't get ridiculous, or the game gets grrrrsome (annoying).<BR/><BR/>thanks in advance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10227834020050284962008-10-18T01:49:00.000-04:002008-10-18T01:49:00.000-04:00Hi Tigg,unfortunately I don't get your analogy,you...Hi Tigg,<BR/>unfortunately I don't get your analogy,<BR/>your test doesn't seem to have any characteristics similar to what I am doing.<BR/><BR/>but as I told the rev, you may want to wait for the other articles.<BR/><BR/>Imagine I told you I was god. What principles would you use to INFER that I'm not. Because once I say that I am god, you cannot prove that i'm not can you? But you can come REASONABLY close to determining THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT I AM GOD WHEN IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT I A HUMAN TYPING INTO A KEYBOARD.<BR/><BR/>What principles would you use to base your reasoning on? How do you know they are valid? How do you know you can trust them? Why do you have a right to use them? If I tell you I'm god do you have any right to question?<BR/><BR/>I Zilch tells you I'm god, do you have any right to question? What principles would you use to base your reasoning on? How do you know they are valid? How do you know you can trust them? Why do you have a right to use them? <BR/><BR/>I don't see how you can believe that if Scripture is the word of God, then how is it that in two of a myriad of cases, god incorrectly classified a bat as a bird and thought that some locusts and crickets had four legs. <BR/><BR/>that was the LAW, if anything in the bible is going to equate to god, the LAW should.<BR/><BR/>hope that helps.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78320519064126358452008-10-17T14:00:00.000-04:002008-10-17T14:00:00.000-04:00How does one determine whether or not a dog barks?...How does one determine whether or not a dog barks?<BR/><BR/>One listens to it.<BR/><BR/>If an unknown test subject makes no sound then there is no way to determine if it is a dog. (At least not by the barking test.)<BR/><BR/>If the subject moos, meows, quacks or trumpets then we know it is not a dog.<BR/><BR/>To carry this analogy over, your critism of this would be: since the barking test tests for barking, cows, cats, ducks and elephants could not be ruled out as dogs simce they do not bark.<BR/><BR/>(?)<BR/><BR/>Unless you are arguing that the bible contains no information (good or bad) I still don't see how your criticism makes any sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78588574724613509262008-10-17T08:51:00.000-04:002008-10-17T08:51:00.000-04:00Just name the day, Lee. But if you're really loca...Just name the day, Lee. But if you're really located at Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, then you can bring the bull kelp. I'll convert it to a horn.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33010616054201101952008-10-17T07:25:00.000-04:002008-10-17T07:25:00.000-04:00No Rich,according to Lev. 11:19 the bat is a bird,...No Rich,<BR/>according to Lev. 11:19 the bat is a bird, in any case wings don't count as legs even if those crazy scientists don't think they're birds!<BR/><BR/>Leviticus 11:20-23 was talking about locusts and grasshoppers.<BR/><BR/>and flying squirrels don't fly. just throw one up as high as you can in the middle of wide open field and see what happens, but do the christian thing and try to catch it before it hits the ground.<BR/><BR/>But anyway, I'll buy you guys beers for the effort! Heck I'll even by the rev one cause he's a good sport! And we can use zilchs Horn Of Bull Kelp to play drinking songs with!<BR/><BR/>Nothing like getting filled with the spirit to the sound of a Horn of Bull Kelp!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49763224084872814612008-10-17T03:01:00.000-04:002008-10-17T03:01:00.000-04:00Flying squirrels! Good one, richd. I just rememb...Flying squirrels! Good one, richd. I just remembered the beautifully named lizard, <I>Draco Volans</I>, that can extend its ribs to form wings and glides pretty well. And there are even some frogs whose webbed feet are big enough to glide with. That's several beers, Lee...<BR/><BR/>As far as staying sane after tangling with the Triabloguers, you just have to know when to quit, because they don't.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56977180369880363962008-10-17T01:04:00.000-04:002008-10-17T01:04:00.000-04:00Ok lee,what about squirals? And don't bats have 4 ...Ok lee,<BR/>what about squirals? And don't bats have 4 walking limbs? There not even mythical. ;)<BR/>Zilch, never harm done. I don't see how you remain sane after triablogue.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39826766663661342932008-10-16T23:51:00.000-04:002008-10-16T23:51:00.000-04:00Hi rev,Sure but why do all these things mentioned ...Hi rev,<BR/><B><I>Sure but why do all these things mentioned contradict the word of God status? The only answer is because you presume that God's word means total LITERAL accurate descriptions of reality. Metaphor, poetry, irony, parallelism, why cannot God use those? For example your description of man being made from earth is only one of two possible creation accounts. You yourself are selective in your data selection. Very Bad Science...? Perhaps the shame should be re-directed.</I></B><BR/>thanks for proving my point. <BR/>do you mind if I use this in one of my articles?<BR/><BR/><B><I>The problem is you are arguing from presumption not consideration of the scriptures.</I></B><BR/>look accept it, I am arguing from established principles, you are misrepresenting me on purpose because you can't refute it.<BR/><BR/>In the only record of a thing that exists, metaphor is poor quality information. The fact that christianity is splintered into so many denominations is proof. The fact that after 2000 years it only has a 35% (at best) mindshare is proof.<BR/>If god doensn't provide information any better than a human can, it is irrational to presume that it came from anything other than a human.<BR/><BR/>metaphor is poor quality information.<BR/>Two different creation accounts is poor quality information.<BR/><BR/>and I'll show diagrams of why in the coming articles, or you can just go look at the "Data Quality ....Ontological principles" diagrams because I am going to use those as examples for mine.<BR/><BR/>and rev,<BR/>leviticus and deuteronomy were not meant to be metaphor and you should know that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37925629105341149212008-10-16T17:10:00.000-04:002008-10-16T17:10:00.000-04:00Hey Lee,You said,If the bible makes a claim, and i...Hey Lee,<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>If the bible makes a claim, and it makes other claims that are inconsistent with previous claims, then it cancels itself out. <BR/><BR/>I agree, but you have not presented any.<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>It is not circular because an external standard is applied.<BR/><BR/>- Jesus is god.<BR/>- scripture is gods word<BR/>- Jesus is the word or logos<BR/>- jesus verifies that the scriptures are the word of god<BR/><BR/>- but the bible mentions that people were made out of earth<BR/>- but the bible mentions that pi is only three<BR/>- but the bible mentions that there are winged creatures that walk on four legs. I'll buy you a a beer if you can name one.<BR/>- the bible mentions a whole slew of incorrect criteria of the real world<BR/><BR/>These are meaningless, they do not map to real world items or events, they are overturned by evidence to the contrary.<BR/><BR/>Sure but why do all these things mentioned contradict the word of God status? The only answer is because you presume that God's word means total LITERAL accurate descriptions of reality. Metaphor, poetry, irony, parallelism, why cannot God use those? For example your description of man being made from earth is only one of two possible creation accounts. You yourself are selective in your data selection. Very Bad Science...? Perhaps the shame should be re-directed.<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>God is either being deceptive, failing to communicate as well as is warranted, or it wasn't god.<BR/><BR/>Or (4) You are failing to take into consideration all the data in all the different ways it is presented. You are setting limits on how you think God must have decided to communicate and are now trying to knock it down. The problem is you are arguing from presumption not consideration of the scriptures.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Rev. Phil. <BR/><BR/>Author of the blog Christianity Versus Atheism<BR/>http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/Reverend Phillip Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066146652758132098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37920748674591258902008-10-16T14:19:00.000-04:002008-10-16T14:19:00.000-04:00You're on, Lee. And no, that's not a beer bong: i...You're on, Lee. And no, that's not a beer bong: it's a horn made from bull kelp. Since instrument making is not just my profession, but my calling, I can't resist trying to coax sounds out of found objects, and kelp makes a pretty good horn. Unfortunately, here in landlocked Austria, there's no kelp, so I only get occasional fixes on trips- that one was near my uncle's house in Crescent City, in Northern California.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15590844513567069432008-10-16T11:20:00.000-04:002008-10-16T11:20:00.000-04:00Zilch,maybe, but one question first.Is that a beer...Zilch,<BR/>maybe, <BR/>but one question first.<BR/><BR/>Is that a beer bong your holding up to your mouth?<BR/><BR/>If it is, I'll look into flight arrangements. I'll bring my beer hat and one for you too. We can go cruising for chicks. They dig the hat.<BR/>;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42108976376424783752008-10-16T11:13:00.000-04:002008-10-16T11:13:00.000-04:00You owe me a beer, Lee. Pegasus is an animal that...You owe me a beer, Lee. Pegasus is an animal that walks on four legs and flies. Not only that, but a garbage truck has four wheels and flies. I'll collect when you visit me in Vienna.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78714716342762181862008-10-16T11:07:00.000-04:002008-10-16T11:07:00.000-04:00Hi rev,Here is the major logic flaw though. What y...Hi rev,<BR/><B><I>Here is the major logic flaw though. What you expect about Jesus comes from data in the Bible and according to you this data is poor therefore what you expect from Jesus must also be poor, therefore the argument is circular. The setting up of the premise excludes your conclusion. </I></B><BR/><BR/>you are denying sound principles rev. Shame on you.<BR/>sound principles of communication, and sound priciples of mathematics rev, just to name two. <BR/><BR/>Ever heard of cross-checking your results, your answers, your conclusions, your facts, your checkbook, your bank statement, you grocery bill, etc, etc, etc,<BR/> <BR/>If the bible makes a claim, and it makes other claims that are inconsistent with previous claims, then it cancels itself out. <BR/><BR/>It is not circular because an external standard is applied.<BR/><BR/>- Jesus is god.<BR/>- scripture is gods word<BR/>- Jesus is the word or logos<BR/>- jesus verifies that the scriptures are the word of god<BR/><BR/>- but the bible mentions that people were made out of earth<BR/>- but the bible mentions that pi is only three<BR/>- but the bible mentions that there are winged creatures that walk on four legs. I'll buy you a a beer if you can name one.<BR/>- the bible mentions a whole slew of incorrect criteria of the real world<BR/><BR/>These are meaningless, they do not map to real world items or events, they are overturned by evidence to the contrary.<BR/><BR/>God is either being deceptive, failing to communicate as well as is warranted, or it wasn't god.<BR/><BR/>it doesn't get any simpler than that no matter how much you want to shuffle words around.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69472178195854375052008-10-16T07:35:00.000-04:002008-10-16T07:35:00.000-04:00@ Lee,Thanks Lee,I was thinking that for more comm...@ Lee,<BR/><BR/>Thanks Lee,<BR/><BR/>I was thinking that for more comments on this strand I would have to wade through your articles suggested and with time constraints this would prove near impossible.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for getting the drift.<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>I am a rabbit and I am typing this into the typewriter.<BR/><BR/>That doesn't "map" to a real world state. It doesn't represent a real world state.<BR/><BR/>(1) If the statement is false, as you infer, then you assume at every moment language is present within the Bible in a literal manner. Consequently metaphorical, analogical, etc are not considerations.<BR/><BR/>My blog answers this in regard to Adam and the Genesis account.<BR/><BR/>(2) Secondly, your statement actually does 'map' well, the problem is not the statement per se, it is the reconciliation with present experience. <BR/><BR/>So the problem is not the data its it reconciliation with present circumstances. <BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>You can use the sentence above to demonstrate that it is meaningless using its words and the inferences that it evokes.<BR/><BR/>I think the sentence makes perfect sense. Its just hard to reconcile with my personal present experience. <BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>If those words in the bible don't accurately reflect a state of the world then they are effectively meaningless.<BR/><BR/>No I don't think so. Accurately is an ambiguous word and something the bible does not claim about itself. I think this is where scientific atheism enters into many methodological problems. It is based purely on observed facts about the world but that is its limits. Science cannot prove your statement wrong.<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>Either one is not what you'd expect out of Jesus. So those passages take a hit in credibility.<BR/><BR/>Here is the major logic flaw though. What you expect about Jesus comes from data in the Bible and according to you this data is poor therefore what you expect from Jesus must also be poor, therefore the argument is circular. The setting up of the premise excludes your conclusion. <BR/><BR/>@ tigg13<BR/><BR/>No worries,<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/>You would agree, wouldn't you, that an information test done on good data would show that the information was good, right? <BR/><BR/>So, if the test is done and you don't get a positive result, doesn't that automatically infer that the information is bad?<BR/><BR/>Not necessarily, just because a positive is shown does not mean the converse of a negative is a positive. <BR/><BR/>For example if it barks it must be a dog. If it fails to bark then it cannot be a dog? Logical fallacy! <BR/><BR/>Regards, Rev. Phil.<BR/><BR/> Author of the blog Christianity Versus Atheism<BR/>http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/Reverend Phillip Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066146652758132098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26226960957726654922008-10-16T05:47:00.000-04:002008-10-16T05:47:00.000-04:00'Scuse me for buttin in...Even if you disregard th...'Scuse me for buttin in...<BR/><BR/>Even if you disregard the negative results of an information test of bad information on the grounds that the information was bad to begin with, you still have a problem Rev.<BR/><BR/>You would agree, wouldn't you, that an information test done on good data would show that the information was good, right? <BR/><BR/>So, if the test is done and you don't get a positive result, doesn't that automatically infer that the information is bad?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16963593442436789122008-10-16T00:16:00.000-04:002008-10-16T00:16:00.000-04:00HI Rev,I think you have made the point that to use...HI Rev,<BR/>I think you have made the point that to use the bible to show that it is inaccurate, is circular.<BR/>meaning that if I am proving the bible is bad information then I can't use it to prove that its bad information. <BR/><BR/>is that right?<BR/><BR/>well,<BR/><BR/>I am a rabbit and I am typing this into the typewriter.<BR/><BR/>That doesn't "map" to a real world state. It doesn't represent a real world state.<BR/><BR/>You can use the sentence above to demonstrate that it is meaningless using its words and the inferences that it evokes.<BR/><BR/>So the bible says generally that scripture is the word of God, Jesus is effectively god on earth, and he says that scripture is the word of god all the while using scripture as premises in his arguments.<BR/><BR/>If those words in the bible don't accurately reflect a state of the world then they are effectively meaningless.<BR/><BR/>If there was no adam, and evidence strongly suggests that, then when he uses adam as a premise, he demonstrates that either he is deceitful or ignorant about adam. Either one is not what you'd expect out of Jesus. So those passages take a hit in credibility.<BR/><BR/>If there was no noah, and evidence strongly suggests that, then when he uses noah as a premise, he demonstrates that either he is deceitful or ignorant about noah. Either one is not what you'd expect out of Jesus. So those passages take a hit in credibility.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3297427894158216722008-10-15T13:30:00.000-04:002008-10-15T13:30:00.000-04:00I guess I have to get my irony meter recalibrated,...I guess I have to get my irony meter recalibrated, richd. It's been giving spurious readings ever since I got entangled at Triablogue, and hasn't been the same since.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69364584118188285982008-10-15T12:30:00.000-04:002008-10-15T12:30:00.000-04:00Plenty of others too zilch I was being sarcastic t...Plenty of others too zilch I was being sarcastic though.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72933056558066892842008-10-15T11:23:00.000-04:002008-10-15T11:23:00.000-04:00Yes, richd, and what about those Raelians? They d...Yes, richd, and what about those Raelians? They don't recognize the Bible at all, and <I>still</I> people criticize them!zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27996281325836441622008-10-15T09:40:00.000-04:002008-10-15T09:40:00.000-04:00All those problems with the bible, and the mormons...All those problems with the bible, and the mormons get alot of crap for not hinging their belief solely on the bible, go figure. ;)Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.com