Gilgamesh is older but I can not argue with your assessment.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/job.html
This is the summary of the scholarship page. The link to the text, from multiple translations are at the top.
Were Adam and Eve the first people?
- Thread starter Beer w/Straw
- Start date
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/job.html
This is the summary of the scholarship page. The link to the text, from multiple translations are at the top.
What you are defining is a Gentile not an Atheist.
From my Post 256
Does anyone posting to this Thread deny the existence of the fossils mentioned above?
Has anyone posting to this Thread provided an explanation which is better than evolution for those fossils?
So far, no Post has addressed my above remarks.
I do not think I missed a Post which addressed my remarks. did I?
Does anyone posting to this Thread deny the existence of the fossils mentioned above?
Has anyone posting to this Thread provided an explanation which is better than evolution for those fossils?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Put there by Satan to test the faith of the believer☺
Alex
I can only speak for myself. The points you make are rational and logical but those qualities are irrelevant when discussing mythology.
We seem to take for granted the scientific knowledge we have at this moment in time. For example, the theory of continental drift was not firmly established until after a paper was published in 1968. As a child in the early 1980s I can remember showing my elementary teacher how all the continents seem to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. He said that was silly, it is just coincidence. He was wrong and, as my teacher, was misinforming me of the truth. In his defense, the paper showing the evidence for continental drift was not published until after he graduated from college.
My point being, yes, you make wonderful points but mythology is like my old elementary teacher. I, as a child, showed him a bit of evidence. He rejected it out of hand because that was not what he was taught .....
I hope you understand my point, this is the Philosophy - Religion section. There are a lot of old "elementary teachers" here.
Last edited:
Not at all. The strongest argument for the obvious reading is that the alternative is ridiculous: that the authors of the Bible didn't count birds as living.
As generic philosophy, it leads to a discussion that is not without merit, but the present application is a bit less than useful. There arises a question of utility and purpose. Some have suggested one need not know much about what they criticize in certain issues, and we can leave those aside. Among their sympathizers, though, are some who argue various aspects of the fact that vulgate religion is, in fact, vulgar.
Indeed, this point sometimes goes further to suggest that the religion really is what people make it, and it is not unwise to note that aspect does not preclude excusing critics from ever finding a clue about what they criticize.
The thing is that, evolutionarily, religion isn't going away anytime soon. As a marketplace—i.e., living—reality, gutterbrawling lowbrow has few, if any useful effects; the fulcrum there depending on how we value personal satisfaction in lieu of something more empirically tangible.
To the other, though, finding sufficient clues about human behavior in general and religion in particular can be difficult and long work. The temptation to rest on fallacy can be strong, and it is neither rare nor difficult to encounter poseurs whose strongest argument is rubber-glue, demanding to know "what about" whatever group they seem to hate. Still, though, as I suggested earlier, the enlightened are supposed to have a clue. And, yes, this does, of course, work both ways, so to speak. And it's one thing to recognize the obvious, that if one was enlightened by having some all-wise God at their side, they would make more sense. But it should go without saying that those who assail religious thought, expression, and behavior for being ultimately irrational oblige themselves to some measure of rational thought, expression, and behavior. And, sure, we can chortle at that last all we want, because this is Sciforums, and what we witness in the argument against religion is not enlightenment, nor rationality; it is covetousness.
The problem in this thread, and beyond Sideshowbob in particular, is an imposition of definitions. Some days these definitions work just fine, but there are inappropriate contexts and applications. In this case, arguing about what an ancient document actually says does require we attend the contemporaneous definitions; the counteridyll, that the religious corpus we criticize ought to be this instead of that is, ultimately, fallacious.
Something more than arbitrary, say-so contrarianism would, comparatively speaking, at least have some decent use.
Besides, remember the context I'm responding to, which is one of modern, disbelieving eyes with no real sympathy to the elements you're attempting to introduce, and even less for the literary and historical record pertaining to centric notions of life and death in theocultural iteration. Where I might find your consideration of storycraft in history relevant and functional is somewhere outside the known constraints of the story at hand.
The point about the use of 'living' in tale-telling allusion isn't inherently wrong; we just happen to know the general thematic context of chay, as well as have awareness of persistent themes in the Abramic record. That second note, about spiritual life and death, wasn't a joke. Also, before dismissing as a "still common ... all but universal", that we are considering one of the most influential archetypes of oral tradition recorded in epic form known in history. And as to why this variation, per your thesis, that, too, has psychoanalytical meaning in its historical context. Chasing this stuff down, as I mentioned earlier, isn't always fun, but let me know when you get to Barnabas; it's a mess.
From the gutter vulgate to the politician on high, is there nothing in between? To illustrate: To the one, we might propose an example of the vulgate in an adult, youngish, Catholic male with a mild learning disorder. And while there is no guarantee the Pope, to the other, is without a learning disruption, neither is that question necessary to our purpose.
The Pope will utter political statements. The young man will present and communicate a faith that is less catechismal, and more vernacular and inconsistent. There are reasons these iterations of faith stand out to us. Not quite the Pope, of course, are the myriad Christianist church leaders in the U.S., and their postchristian revival flocks; it is effectively impossible for Americans to ignore the disruption these institutions cause. And somewhere between our young Catholic and, say, the mother who murdered her sons for Jesus because He gave her a sign when one of the boys killed a frog, or the mother so enraged that her twelve year old was not a virgin she slew the girl, yes, of course there is a reason these spectacles catch our attention.
The range people who will discuss literary craft and history, as you have raised, seems complicated and thereby rare; most of what we will get is apologism and inquisition, a political dispute. Dispassionate discourse is extraordinarily unlikely in an environment entirely given over to superstition, fallacy, and politics. Where such discourse and rational advocates should find rational sympathy, here at Sciforums they will generally encounter petty covetousness.
Rational historical discourse is similarly discouraged. The political joke is that the Calvinists and the Brethren will settle their differences once they've dealt with the rest of us. Consider the value of engaging that actual historical analysis; the contemporary factions don't even properly understand what they're on about in this aspect.
Look around at the religious people you criticize. Do you think they can keep up with that discussion? Go ahead, tell a Christian they are wrong because God doesn't exist, but what, really, would you expect them to do?
These days, when the question of Christianism requires me to engage in such a fashion, it seems more productive to point out they should probably drop the pretense of being Christian. Backing that line, however, does require knowing at least something about what one criticizes. But they can either hop on the trolley and get a clue, in such cases, or run away to ignorance. The bit where the critics join them in the gutter because that was the whole point of complaining, anyway, doesn't surprise. Remember, most contemporary Amreican Christians are no more prepared to discuss the tension 'twixt Dallas and Fullerton than most of their critics. Compelling Christianists to recognize their heritage forces them to reassess their faith; it's one thing to have a belief, but another to countenance the fact of its excremental and wholly human origin.
For rational people not lost in religious zeal, that ought to file under, Duh.
Look, even Donald effing Trump can occasionally be correct. If he happens to say his suit is blue while wearing a blue suit, then he will be correct. It can even be an accident, but if someone happens, in that moment, to disagree with him just because he's Donald Trump, or a Republican, or generally full of shit, they're still wrong, no matter how full of shit Donald Trump really is.
There are five sentences in Jan's argument at #32↑. The first four are functionally correct and not in conflict with other outcomes of the Biblical text. The fifth can be challenged as a matter of opinion invoking degrees, gradations, or anything short of the absoluteness of the word, "altogether".
• • •
This argument is the equivalent of running around in 1987 trying to argue with young people about the word "bad".
Or, perhaps, writing a literary review that a particular book is terrible and shouldn't be taught in schools, because, after all, the best and worst of times are opposites, and can't both be at once. And at the end, you might point out the toxicity of pretending death is "rest". There is, after all, an argument to be had that we shouldn't be filling children's heads with contradictory notions.
Think of it this way: If you want to criticize "them", but instead address your own straw men, you only criticize yourself.
Sadly, it's both ego defense and a manner of cruelty; it's a gaslight torching your own straw man for the sake of setting something on fire, and has an effect of denouncing someone or something while effectively silencing it. The extraordinary disrespect actually seems the only purpose.
Remember, what you mean by "obvious reading" not so much ignores a literary record spanning millennia as despises it, and relies on an imposed definition that didn't even exist among people when the stories were told and recorded in writing. It is neither rational nor scientific to craft such fallacious surrogates to criticize.
The strongest argument for what you call the obvious reading is the shape of your failure; the only argument you're addressing is your own imposition.
That's not true. They are functionally incorrect (it's a story, not an argument, for starters - that's the functional context).
They oblige themselves to be correct, or at least plausible, in a forum like this - beyond that, they may have other agendas that require demonstration of various virtues etc, but surely these are optional.
If you let the likes of Jan frame your issues for you, you may as well just not post.
It's a very limited set: fundies, especially overt Abrahamic theists who post on science forums.
I'm telling them, in public where bystanders can hear and follow, that they are acting in the service of wrong, bad, even evil, as demonstrated by their utter and fundamental dishonesty. That whatever they are doing is in bad faith. Beyond that I don't expect to have any influence on them, and have no reason to care what they do in response. I'm not trying to change them - I'm interested in preventing them from dominating and framing public discussion by unopposed repetition, as they have in the past to the very great cost of much that I do care about.
To reiterate, something more than arbitrary, say-so contrarianism would, comparatively speaking, at least have some decent use.
See, the thing is that anyone can put in a sincere post as I did, and all you have is this uneducated, political bullshit.
Make an argument, Iceaura; don't just stamp your foot and bawl.
Oh, hey ... er ... oh ...
... I see, you're still hedging.
We should reiterate, then, that relying on an imposed definition that didn't even exist among people when the stories were told and recorded in writing is neither rational nor scientific; it is not correct; it is not plausible.
If I skip the line about growing up and learning to read, do I even want to know how you complain about my response to Bob by falsely claiming I was responding to Jan.
Seriously, it's like the time you tried to blame me↗ for writing your own post.
Saying untrue things like that, Iceaura, is neither rational nor scientific; it's not correct; it does nothing the plausibility of either whatever you think your argument is or the character.
We come again to the point of who you let set the terms of the discussion. However, you do make a certain other point for us to consider:
Yes, yes, yes. And you're just a rabid bigot. But do you feel better for having said it?
Remember what you said, though: "fundies, especially overt Abrahamic theists who post on science forums". That's all you're ever criticizing. So don't ever pretend it's about "religion", or even "Christianity" or "Islam" or whatever happens to be under your bigot bonnet today.
No, seriously:
Bigotry for the sake of revenge.
Thank you, at least, for admitting it.
Although I admit, it sounds like a pretty spectacular tale, these "fundies", these "overt Abrahamic theists who post on science forums" who inflicted a "very great cost of much that I do care about".
Honestly, I don't know if I should put on my green cap to address that one; was a time when the line from the Administration would have been to tell you to relax, it's just a website. So whatever these science forum-posting "fundie Abrahamic theists" have cost you, some rational evidence that, it's not, as such, "just a website", might help change the fact of suffering irrational zealots for no good reason at Sciforums. (Or not: Suffering irrational zealots at Sciforums appears to be a trade against our pretense of rational discourse in order to promote irrational zealotry.)
And it's true, the preceding couple paragraphs, and one other above, simply acknowledge what you wrote; there is also a question of what you meant, and many days it would be easy enough to say that part is kind of clear, too, but these days, who knows, I could easily be surprised and you could be referring to the menagerie of incompetent religious trolls we've kept around, for years, apparently in order that atheists like you can have someone to abuse. In any case, there also remains a question of whether the point is some functional pretense, such as justice, or enlightenment, or simply inflicting damage against people and society because you think some two-bit ignoramus can grant you that right.
Meanwhile, it's also true that I just gave you and Bob substantial posts considering rational evidence from the historical record, and neither of you could be bothered to lift a finger toward any useful end.
A lot of "atheism" around here bigotry. To the one, that's been kind of obvious for years. To the other, at least you acknowledged your part openly. Thank you for that.
I think it is difficult to pretend to be rational, when you are irrational.
Modern atheism, isn’t what they would like the world to view them as.
They are angry, and frustrated.
Jan.
Which you will find in the earlier posts you blew off.
And is more than you have provided - your contribution being not only flatly unsupported assertion, but wrong - and accompanied by attempted personal disparagement via wrongfooting, a furtherance of Jan's agenda and by similar means.
#306 That correction of another of your oddball posts counts as a lifted finger. You might have taken it as a warning.
It's you, not me, screwing up a simple reading of a standard rhetorical technique common to myth and epic storytelling worldwide for thousands of years. A technique found throughout the Bible, not a one-off, by the way.*
(A technique that has been discussed on this forum in other contexts, if I remember back a ways, by me at least, in terms of timing and left/right brain communication and so forth.)
And using that crude and frankly inexplicable error as a pretext for personal disparagements of people who offend you, apparently by not taking people like Jan as sincere and well-motivated contributors to honest discussion.
So "education" seems hardly relevant. We're still in middle school "Introduction to Poetry" class, on the education axis.
Political?
Projection, thy face is legion.
You are behaving badly.
Remember what your reaction has been to the continual deflection of gun control threads into wankery about calibers and stopping power and cycle rates and bullet design and the definition of an "assault" rifle? This is you doing that - and getting the calibers and cycle rates wrong.
Jan is trolling with an agenda, as always on this forum, and doing so dishonestly as before - do you really think Jan is trying to argue that Adam and Eve were not the ancestors of all living people, the first of us? That Jan is posting relevantly on this thread?
No, Jan is not - as you flatly asserted, without justification of the slightest - "functionally" correct, by accident or design. Nor does he care, apparently. You have badly mistaken the function of his posts, as well as the "function" of the storyteller's art and the translator's craft (in the Bible or anywhere), to entertain that silly notion for three seconds.
You are - as you so often put it, in your rational and civil manner - stamping your foot and bawling. Why?
Me, pretending?
That's you losing track of your own spittle-flecked diatribes of the past, and thinking you are remembering my posting.
Get a grip.
- - -
*"What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?"
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
All of them?
Alex
No, dude, you skipped out on making an argument:
• "That's not true. They are functionally incorrect (it's a story, not an argument, for starters - that's the functional context)." (#308↑)
At no point did you even try to support your arbitrary, say-so contrarianism.
Like this. Which? #306↑? Insisting on lazy fallacy counts as lifting a finger?
Jan, Jan, Jan. What ever happened to Marcia?
You're more interested in your rivalry with Jan than you are having an educated point. Here, for instance:
(1) "Yet [Eve] didn't give rise to elephants and scorpions." — You have asserted↗ that "Jan is not … 'functionally' correct, by accident of design". You also said↗ his points were "functionally incorrect". A thesis on Eve as mother to elephants and scorpions would certainly be innovative and fascinating.
(2) "She is as much mother to them as she is to mankind, according to that text." — Ah, now this ought to be straightforward; you can make that point, right? Oh, wait, you already did, din't you? Or maybe not. Where are the "earlier posts" you mentioned? You know, since the textual analysis, or whatever beyond arbitrary, say-so contrarianism, showing how Jan is not correct is there?
(3) "What it doesn’t say is that Adam and Eve are the first human beings." — No, really, if you think he's wrong, the citation ought to be easy enough. Or is it in those earlier posts you mentioned, that I haven't yet found?
(4) "They are the first of their linage." — This much is true. Something about the insufficiency of arbitrary, say-so contrarianism goes here, but your insensate bigotry tends, even regarding something this obvious, toward futility.
(5) "A different thing altogether." — Like I said, this part can be challenged as a matter of opinion pertaining to the absoluteness implied by the word, "altogether".
(2) "She is as much mother to them as she is to mankind, according to that text." — Ah, now this ought to be straightforward; you can make that point, right? Oh, wait, you already did, din't you? Or maybe not. Where are the "earlier posts" you mentioned? You know, since the textual analysis, or whatever beyond arbitrary, say-so contrarianism, showing how Jan is not correct is there?
(3) "What it doesn’t say is that Adam and Eve are the first human beings." — No, really, if you think he's wrong, the citation ought to be easy enough. Or is it in those earlier posts you mentioned, that I haven't yet found?
(4) "They are the first of their linage." — This much is true. Something about the insufficiency of arbitrary, say-so contrarianism goes here, but your insensate bigotry tends, even regarding something this obvious, toward futility.
(5) "A different thing altogether." — Like I said, this part can be challenged as a matter of opinion pertaining to the absoluteness implied by the word, "altogether".
So, there you go. The first four ought to be easy enough. The fifth is what it is, and the only reason it or any of this concerns anyone is that a discussion has fallen this far down a fallacy hole.
To reiterate↑:
Also, before dismissing as a "still common ... all but universal", that we are considering one of the most influential archetypes of oral tradition recorded in epic form known in history. And as to why this variation, per your thesis, that, too, has psychoanalytical meaning in its historical context. Chasing this stuff down, as I mentioned earlier, isn't always fun, but let me know when you get to Barnabas; it's a mess.
I don't know, Iceaura, it seems to me like you're trying to put on while skipping out. You offered a different formulation within the broader literary themes you refer to. There are structural questions, of course, but even still, the symbols invoked have their purpose. That repetition with variation is "standard poetic technique" says nothing about how it is used. Your argument precludes separation as a result of the variation, but sometimes the differences are the point of the variation. Let me know when you get to Jimmy Buffet; it could be his fault.
I should have been more direct about Barnabas. The question of this particular variation in Job 28 pertains to why birds or fowl, instead of something else.
Your general consideration of storytelling and rhetorical technique does not preclude the particular variation, form, or outcome you are trying to refuse.
Whatever↗ you↗ say↗, Iceaura↗, just↗ because↗ you're↗ you↗ and↗ thus↗ could↗ never↗ say↗ anything↗ inaccurate↗.
Exactly how you ended up thinking that ascribing ubiquity and universality and standard-exemplification to a famous passage in an epic tale is "dismissing" it, will probably never be clear.
It does preclude your ascription of "separation" and logical counter-implication to a storyteller's repetition and reification and rhythmic emphasis, based on your and Jan's bogus framing of the passage as a technical, logical, historical, argument. Is that what you are talking about?
- - -
You just quoted one of the several arguments you claim I didn't make (that the storytelling function of the Bible passage he was functionally misrepresenting is what establishes that Jan's posting was functionally incorrect).
And that you should have taken the warning. He was right, you were wrong, and it wasn't subtle - you're going haywire there, and you might have picked up on that by being tagged so easily and flippantly.
Rivalry? For what?
Just stop with the personal insults. You're making an ass of yourself.
Now you've fallen for Jan's framing. You were warned about that.
Or maybe you just lost track of what "functionally" means here, with Jan's posting. Hard to say.
Uh, that's gibberish, dude. I'm supposed to follow you and Jan into the weeds of irrelevant "textual" analysis? What are you trying to say?
He's functionally incorrect - he's trying to wrongfoot the discussion by spinning on at least three different senses of "first", one being whether Adam and Eve were the original and unique ancestors of all living people, another that Adam was the first human being made in God's image or of dirt/clay or with God's breath or something, yet another a straight timeline sense in which God had made other humans prior to Adam but in some unspecified different way, maybe not in His image or with His breath or on Earth or whatever,
which would end up conflicting with each other and the rest of the Bible after a few pages of wasted thread, but which were of course dishonest anyway so it doesn't matter.
And your claim was also that his quote there did not conflict with other passages in the Bible, either. Which it does. Functionally.
But its function is to appear to conflict, somehow, with the claim that their lineage is all of humanity. It doesn't work for that. It malfunctions, so to speak.
Yep. Surprised you got sucked in.
The immediate explanation for that is a shared agenda of disparagement, personal attack, etc.
Sound plausible?
Well, you're so privileged to be a theist, can you teach the rest of us?
Yeah, whatever.
It just is isn't it?