|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| Thanks for your admission. The facts were already supplied on how to judge ancient manuscripts. |
No, they weren't. Data is how to judge ancient manuscripts. You've provided zero data, both about your own, and about Rteacher's. Your nonsense, "They're true because they're ancient, and we must accept them or else we couldn't accept any other ancient manuscript," claim is not getting you anywhere. If you really believe that "Other unnamed manuscripts say a few of the same things as the NT," is proof that everything in the NT is historically accurate, it's you that needs further education. So, let's see some statistics. Or do you still not have any? That would be an embarassing shame.
I wonder, do you really think you're fooling anyone here? That's always been the mystery of internet bullshitters to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Olivencia
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They are not true because they are ancient. DUHHH. Go back and read the criteria that I actually listed and do some research about the rules of evidence supplied by the founder of the Harvard Law School that I gave a link to.
Incredible how you can make such inane comments like that.
Yawn....boring stupidity good bye  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| They are not true because they are ancient. DUHHH. Go back and read the criteria that I actually listed and do some research about the rules of evidence supplied by the founder of the Harvard Law School that I gave a link to. |
Nothing you've listed is anywhere near sufficient, especially since the rules of evidence he's referring to are rules of legal evidence, which are irrelevent in the situation we're discussing. This quotation from wikipedia's entry on ancient document verification in particular makes it clear why:
| Quote: |
| With respect to authentication, an "ancient document" is one that may be deemed authentic without a witness to attest to the circumstances of its creation because its age suggests that it is unlikely to have been falsified in anticipation of the litigation in which it is introduced. |
This is why old documents are considered admissable regarding legal matters: because it's considered unlikely such documents would have been forged specifically in response to the legal case in question, old as they are. That doesn't mean the same documents can be considered acceptable from a historical, scientific, or any other point of view. Anyone trying to apply this rule with regards to historic facts is being deceptive.
Oh, and even better, from later in the document:
| Quote: |
| By admitting an ancient document into evidence, it is presumed only that the document is what it purports to be, but there are no presumptions about the truth of the document's contents. A jury can still decide that the author of the document was lying or mistaken when the author wrote it. |
So the standards in question, even if applied (unreasonably, given the non-legal context of the New Testament) to the New Testament, simply would prove that it is, in fact, the New Testament. It wouldn't prove the contents of the New Testament to be true. And these kinds of legal technicalities, along with rules for things like cross-examining, form the basis of your scholarly Christian apologist's case? It's not surprising he's failed to convince the world with this, because it's nonsense.
I've told you what basic proof of your claims would consist of. You've repeatedly failed to do that, and each time you've run out of distractions, you've run away. When you're ready to provide evidence of your claims, I'm sure we'll all be here. Unsurprisingly, genuine evidence in favor of a bigot cultist's hateful propaganda is hard to come by. 
Oh, and by the way, under the legal rules regarding "ancient documents", any document older than 20 years qualifies, which would mean the Qur'an qualifies as an ancient document by that definition too and would be welcome to the exact same treatment. Not that consistency matters to you, you've shown that handily enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ytuque
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Location: I drink therefore I am!
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
Part I
I am not going to discuss religion at length. However, it seems logical that not everyone praying in a mosque is going to necessarily be your enemy. A young male not affiliated with your enemy, for example, would be, unless you have evidence otherwise, of your faith and killing him would be a criminal offence for which the Taliban should pay for, and I am sure they will pay for their actions. The tribesmen are getting rather angry with them. How can one substantiate that everyone in a place of worship that you worship is a hypocrite. That's not possible, really, so they are committing a sacrilege. They are only going to anger people from their own country.
|
The topic of this thread is "Why would anyone support the Taliban." Clearly there are plenty of religious fundamentalists who support the Taliban, and they can find passages in the Koran which justify these atrocities. This is one of the inherent problems of people reading a 7th century work while holding it to be the literal word of God.
I have pointed out that there is significant support for the Taliban in Pakistan, and the killing of Muslims in some circumstances can be justified on a religious basis. Add to the mix, the low level of literacy and tribalism in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and this is what you get.
The people who need help now are the poor Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians in Pakistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't agree with Olivencia's viewpoints on religion, or the Taliban's either for that matter. However, he does make a valid point on why the Taliban doesn't want us there.
Olivencia would be liberal in comparison to the Taliban and even he has voiced his disgust at the American lifestyle. The Taliban are a lot more conservative than Olivencia have a much lower level of tolerance, which has translated into a fanatical amount of resistance to American forces in their lands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/05/atheist-religion-education-demographics-class
While lifelong atheists are disproportionately better educated than lifelong theists, the converts describe a opposing trend. Those who convert to the theist view point are also disproportionately better educated than those who convert to atheism.
So to get back to your point about "no one who is religious should be using this as an insult"...that is clearly wrong. Apparently there are some well educated religious people who can justifiably and factually say this about some atheists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
http://guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/05/atheist-religion-education-demographics-class
While lifelong atheists are disproportionately better educated than lifelong theists, the converts describe a opposing trend. Those who convert to the theist view point are also disproportionately better educated than those who convert to atheism. |
At least this is slightly more on topic than your totally unrelated example of Fundamentalist vs non-Fundamentalist Protestants. However, again, it's not what I'm talking about, because it's just an attempt to muddy the issue. I made a very simple claim: as education increases, tendency towards religion decreases (and thus tendency towards atheism increases). That remains true even if the statistics vary in hand picked subsections of the overall population.
It's very clear at this point you're simply googling and hand picking statistical studies trying to find something that disagrees with me. It's what you do. None the less, yet again you've failed in that regard. Atheistic converts vs Theistic converts aren't what I'm talking about. Atheists vs Theists -- as total groups -- are what I'm talking about. Any attempt to hand pick subsectors of those groups is irrelevent with regards to the point I'm making.
What is especially disingenuous about this study is the idea of "lifelong atheists" vs "atheistic converts" and "lifelong theists" vs "theistic converts". Those are some incredibly questionable categories, and how you choose to place people into said categories could be very easily used to get whatever results you wanted frankly. The fact that converts from atheism to theism and theism to atheism almost equal out (8.3% to 7.7% according to him) is especially suspicious.
If you're going to present more statistics, please present statistics with regards to what I'm talking about: tendency towards religion vs tendency towards atheism at given levels of education. Not within convert populations, not within purely religious populations, but rather universally. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a large lump of statistical data taken from Europe. Let's see what it says?
Page 10, regarding agreement with the statement, "I believe there is a God."
Education ended at age 15: 69%
Education ended at ages 16-19: 49%
Education ended at age 20+: 45%
Still studying: 45%
Very simple, little room for ambiguity. Taken from a large sample population across varying cultures and countries. Asked alongside questions about many other issues, meaning it's far less likely to be fishing for a specific answer.
As level of education increased, tendency towards religion decreased. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
That doesn't prove any meaningful correlation between education and theistic belief; the last two numbers should show you that well enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would say that people like Olivencia have a very shallow understanding of Christianity. He needs to practice more humility and not insult people and boast about how women supposedly find him so attractive. Jesus said a lot more about that than he did about homosexuality.
If it says in the New Testament that the Old Testament is no longer valid, then you can't use the Old Testament to criticize homosexuality. Jesus said nothing about it, Paul made one statement against it as far as I'm aware. You have to look at the context of Paul's letters and why they were written and to whom they were written. I don't think the writers of the Bible meant for everything to be taken literally and they would probably recognize that things change (like they did between the old and new testaments) and if Paul told the Corinthian women not to speak in church or the Romans a man shouldn't lie with another man it may not apply to all people for all time. Regardless I don't choose to base my whole life on every word of the Bible although I do think it can be useful for moral guidance and inspiration as long as you don't take it all too seriously.
If historians have found that some things in the Bible were true that doesn't make the whole thing true. Historians have found the ancient city of Troy and evidence of battles there but that doesn't prove everything in the Iliad and the Odyssey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
That doesn't prove any meaningful correlation between education and theistic belief; the last two numbers should show you that well enough. |
It's pretty clear the last two numbers are "still studying past 20+ years". It wouldn't make any sense for everyone still studying at every grade level to be at 45%, then suddenly split into diverse groups afterwards. It's also why it's at the end of the chart rather than the beginning.
There's a very obvious trend, even if the religious might not want to accept it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
http://guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/05/atheist-religion-education-demographics-class
While lifelong atheists are disproportionately better educated than lifelong theists, the converts describe a opposing trend. Those who convert to the theist view point are also disproportionately better educated than those who convert to atheism. |
At least this is slightly more on topic than your totally unrelated example of Fundamentalist vs non-Fundamentalist Protestants. However, again, it's not what I'm talking about, because it's just an attempt to muddy the issue. I made a very simple claim: as education increases, tendency towards religion decreases (and thus tendency towards atheism increases). That remains true even if the statistics vary in hand picked subsections of the overall population.
It's very clear at this point you're simply googling and hand picking statistical studies trying to find something that disagrees with me. It's what you do. None the less, yet again you've failed in that regard. Atheistic converts vs Theistic converts aren't what I'm talking about. Atheists vs Theists -- as total groups -- are what I'm talking about. Any attempt to hand pick subsectors of those groups is irrelevent with regards to the point I'm making.
What is especially disingenuous about this study is the idea of "lifelong atheists" vs "atheistic converts" and "lifelong theists" vs "theistic converts". Those are some incredibly questionable categories, and how you choose to place people into said categories could be very easily used to get whatever results you wanted frankly. The fact that converts from atheism to theism and theism to atheism almost equal out (8.3% to 7.7% according to him) is especially suspicious.
If you're going to present more statistics, please present statistics with regards to what I'm talking about: tendency towards religion vs tendency towards atheism at given levels of education. Not within convert populations, not within purely religious populations, but rather universally. Thanks. |
That's not the point I was making. I even quoted you TWICE (the part I had a problem with.) Here I'll do it again.
You said that in regards to getting an education "NO-ONE who is religious should be using this as an insult"...in other words there are no Christians/theists who are educated. I simply showed that was wrong as there are intelligent educated people who are religious.
(Capitals are mine for emphasis as you've skipped past this twice now). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| It's pretty clear the last two numbers are "still studying past 20+ years". It wouldn't make any sense for everyone still studying at every grade level to be at 45%, then suddenly split into diverse groups afterwards. It's also why it's at the end of the chart rather than the beginning. |
Excuse me, I misread the third group. I'll change my statement to the last three numbers. There's no meaningful difference between those with a high school education and those with a secondary education.
| Quote: |
| There's a very obvious trend, even if the religious might not want to accept it. |
In the past 40 years, the numbers of women who would identify themselves as feminists in Memphis has risen drastically. During this same period of time, the number of violent crimes committed in Memphis has also risen drastically. The conclusion should be obvious: feminism breeds violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| It's pretty clear the last two numbers are "still studying past 20+ years". It wouldn't make any sense for everyone still studying at every grade level to be at 45%, then suddenly split into diverse groups afterwards. It's also why it's at the end of the chart rather than the beginning. |
Excuse me, I misread the third group. I'll change my statement to the last three numbers. There's no meaningful difference between those with a high school education and those with a secondary education. |
What? A few percentage points over a gigantic population is a huge difference. Imagine if 1% of Americans were to die. Maybe you'd say, "Oh, there's no meaningful difference in the population," but 2 or 3 million people would feel otherwise. 4% is a substantial shift. But yes, feel free to pretend millions of people aren't a meaningful difference.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| In the past 40 years, the numbers of women who would identify themselves as feminists in Memphis has risen drastically. During this same period of time, the number of violent crimes committed in Memphis has also risen drastically. The conclusion should be obvious: feminism breeds violence. |
Your example should have been, "Feminists and non-feminists were polled for criminal tendencies. Feminists polled higher with regards to criminal tendency. As a result, feminism and criminal tendencies correlate." See how different that is? That would show a correlation between feminism and crime. Yours shows that feminism increased, and crime also increased, but it doesn't show they increased in the same people.
So either you don't understand statistics (which I doubt), or you're disingenuously trying to cast doubt on a fairly obvious correlation in defense of religion (almost certainly the case). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| That's not the point I was making. |
You don't have a point. I made a statement about overall populations. You tried to disprove it by appealing to very specific groups rather than overall populations. I've shown you numbers taken from overall populations, and guess what? It shows the same thing almost every study and statistical sampling ever done on this matter shows.
Look man, you read something you didn't liked, dug around in google to try to find something remotely applicable so you could try to make a contrary point, and came up with nothing; neither study shows, in overall populations, that religion and education positive correlate.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| You said that in regards to getting an education "NO-ONE who is religious should be using this as an insult"...in other words there are no Christians/theists who are educated. |
TUM, don't be obtuse. Of course that doesn't mean there are no Christians/theists who are educated. The fact that you'd try to misconstrue me as claiming that just shows how utterly your contrarian nonsense has all ready failed you. Rather, it says that, given religion and educational level negatively correlate, the religious should not be using education as a point to mock others, as the religious are overall less educated, not more educated.
This is a rhetorical device that is often used when a member of a particular group attacks others for something other members of their group are guilty of. It's very easy to understand, and frankly, you understood it. You responded, very clearly, with an attempt to show a positive correlation between religion and education. Then you responded with a second attempt. That's not a step you would have taken if your goal was simply to show that some educated, intelligent religious people existed. All that would have taken is a few examples of religious, educated, intelligent men.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I simply showed that was wrong as there are intelligent educated people who are religious. |
No, you actually didn't show me there were intelligent educated people who are religious. Rather, you cited some totally inapplicable studies. Fortunately, I all ready knew there are some intelligent, educated people who are religious.
However, let's be honest. That's not what you were trying to show me. What you were trying to do is show a positive correlation between education and religion. You failed. There is a negative correlation. The religious, as a group, are in no position to be mocking others regarding education.
And no, I haven't skipped past anything. You were attempting to try to show a positive correlation between religion and education, and were so hasty and thoughtless in your attempt your first knee-jerk google result was 100% inapplicable, and even your second attempt failed (though it at least delt with the subject at hand!). I understand life is hard when you try to defend conservative dogma with real-world data, and you're a hero for trying, but it just gets inane sometimes how far you stretch it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
