The Funny Side of Religion

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Is it the parts that we know are wrong and the parts that we no longer agree with such as slavery that are written by flawed humans

The sign of a weak position in a debate is when the debater tries to change the subject.

So far, Sam, you have tried to dodge this discussion by dragging in slavery, homosexuality, and burning in hell. Flamed Diving has tried to divert the discussion into launching satellites.

We are not discussing those things. We are discussing the absurd claim that the Bible purports to give a value for pi.

Your reluctance to stay on topic is speaking volumes. What diversions and obfuscations are coming next?

I predict an off-topic rant about the moderation of other fora or an accusation that PDN is intellectually dishonest / condescending / has eyes too close together etc.

Coriolanus

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes it is, it's one of the most pedantic things I've ever seen on these fora.

Nobody said that this part of the Bible isn't true. It's an historical reflection of what happened. The issue doesn't lie with the Bible, it lies with what the Bible is describing. I.E The Israelites and their measurements.

The argument isn't about the Bible being wrong in describing this event at all. That's where the pedantry lies, if you didn't get that then I can see why you might continue arguing this position.

Well we can pick any of the places that the Bible is verifiably wrong or contradictory and the arguement still stands.
We're asked to accept parts of the Bible as being incontrovertible and true and dismiss others as being written by fallible men.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: It's not wrong. It's providing a historical description of what happened.

You seem to be incapable of understanding this so let me help you out.

If I write in a book that young Sam Vimes when doing his maths thought that 2 + 2 = 3 and this was a true event. Does this mean that I am wrong for writing it, or does this mean that Sam Vimes had his maths wrong?

Likewise, if the author of 1 Kings writes that the Israelites had this measurement on a building. Does this mean that the author of 1 Kings is wrong, or does it mean that the Israelites had inaccurate measurements?

What it says: "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. "

No it didn't, it can't possibly have taken a line of thirty cubits to measure around it, unless god temporarily changed the value of pi

philologos

Nevore: read my last post to Sam Vimes.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

The sign of a weak position in a debate is when the debater tries to change the subject.

So far, Sam, you have tried to dodge this discussion by dragging in slavery, homosexuality, and burning in hell. Flamed Diving has tried to divert the discussion into launching satellites.

We are not discussing those things. We are discussing the absurd claim that the Bible purports to give a value for pi.

Your reluctance to stay on topic is speaking volumes. What diversions and obfuscations are coming next?

I predict an off-topic rant about the moderation of other fora or an accusation that PDN is intellectually dishonest / condescending / has eyes too close together etc.

I think you may have missed the point being made. This is not just about the value of pi. The point being made is: if the value of pi is wrong, if they were just using knowledge available to people 2000 years ago, why should we believe that any other part of the bible is divinely inspired? And I then mentioned some things that I would disagree with from the bible such as disapproval of homosexuality, slavery and burning in hell to ask "who's to say these are not just primitive approximations?"

So it's not so much me dodging the issue as you missing the point

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It says ten cubits, not approximately ten cubits. The only reason to assume that it is meant approximately is that we know that it cannot possibly have been ten cubits. So maybe all those moral laws are only meant approximately? They don't say exactly after all

Every physical measurement that people make in everyday life is approximated to some degree. That is a normal way that we all use language.

So, now you are trying to argue that an approximate measurement in a physical description of a historical site somehow carries implications as to whether a law is morally correct? Does the concept of 'comparing like with like' mean anything to you? Have you ever heard the old adage about stopping digging when you're in a hole?

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

Flamed Diving has tried to divert the discussion into launching satellites.

Which, thankfully, we don't use the mathematics of cabbages to do, like your heroes in the Old Testament.

Quint

OK, the book with a talking donkey, talking snake, the human race coming from 2 people - one made from the rib of another, the universe created in a week, genocide from god who loves us all (i could go on) is now being questioned cos pi is out by a bit?

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you may have missed the point being made. This is not just about the value of pi. The point being made is: if the value of pi is wrong, if they were just using knowledge available to people 2000 years ago, why should we believe that any other part of the bible is divinely inspired? And I then mentioned some things that I would disagree with from the bible such as disapproval of homosexuality, slavery and burning in hell to ask "who's to say these are not just primitive approximations?"

So it's not so much me dodging the issue as you missing the point

I boldfaced the word to help you see it better. It is all about the value of pi because you have a vested interest in trying to argue the absurd notion that the Bible purports to give a false value for pi. The more you continue with this charade, the more it becomes apparent to everyone that you aren't the slightest bit interested in what is true. You really wish that the Bible gave a false value for pi because that would suit your agenda. This causes me to wonder how many of your other beliefs are based on similar wishful thinking.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Every physical measurement that people make in everyday life is approximated to some degree. That is a normal way that we all use language.

So, now you are trying to argue that an approximate measurement in a physical description of a historical site somehow carries implications as to whether a law is morally correct? Does the concept of 'comparing like with like' mean anything to you?

When a book is completely unverifiable, makes many an outlandish claim and demands that you live your life by its teachings or be punished, one demands a certain level of accuracy within its pages. If they got this wrong, who's to say the retellings of the resurrection story are accurate? Maybe it was all perfectly natural and they just missed something

PDN wrote: »

Have you ever heard the old adage about stopping digging when you're in a hole?

Indeed...

philologos

The discussion on pi could have really stopped here:

Undergod wrote: »

Ah here, that's not saying "pi = 3". It's giving a description of a more or less circular building, with approximate measurements.

The picture says that people learn that pi is approximately 3.14, it's also true that pi is approximately 3. We don't know exactly what pi is, so we always have to make it approximate to a certain amount of places.

The link that you gave also describes a potential solution to the issue showing that Solomon's Temple may have been constructed using a more accurate version of pi than the Egyptians or that of the Babylonians:
http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/pi.htm

Coriolanus

Jakkass wrote: »

Nevore: read my last post to Sam Vimes.

You';re still missing the point.
If the Bible is just a perfect historical account, then yes, it's not so heinous that parts are wrong but it also means that it's only human agency that can tell us which part are false and which parts are objectively true.
Why is the part on slavery or measurements merely a record of what the contemporary Israelites believed and the parts on resurrection, miracles, the handing down of the commandments etc, objectively true?
Unless there's an addendum somewhere that's verifiably from God that tells us which parts are true and which parts are mere record of contemporary beliefs, then it's only human agency that tells us which parts of the Bible to follow.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I boldfaced the word to help you see it better. It is all about the value of pi because you have a vested interest in trying to argue the absurd notion that the Bible purports to give a false value for pi. The more you continue with this charade, the more it becomes apparent to everyone that you aren't the slightest bit interested in what is true. You really wish that the Bible gave a false value for pi because that would suit your agenda. This causes me to wonder how many of your other beliefs are based on similar wishful thinking.

PDN, could you do me a favour please? If you want to have a debate with me that's absolutely fine but accusing me of dishonesty every time we speak is getting tiresome. Could you please stop accusing me of dishonesty or kindly shut the fuck up?

philologos

Nevore: The Bible being wrong simply isn't the issue if it is describing what happened historically. I think it's royally petty, and indeed it's inaccurate criticism. It's quite funny that people need to resort to this level of pettiness to dismiss it.

Sam Vimes: There's no need for that. You've accused me of dishonesty in the past on at least one occasion if I recall.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

The discussion on pi could have really stopped here:


The picture says that people learn that pi is approximately 3.14, it's also true that pi is approximately 3. We don't know exactly what pi is, so we always have to make it approximate to a certain amount of places.

The link that you gave also describes a potential solution to the issue showing that Solomon's Temple may have been constructed using a more accurate version of pi than the Egyptians or that of the Babylonians:
http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/pi.htm

Jakkass, a simple yes or no answer to this please.

Do you understand that approximating (rounding) this value:

3.14159265 has a far greater effect than approximating (rounding) this value:

3.14159265

Yes or no?

philologos

I do Flamed Diving, we also have to assess the other solution provided in the link which Sam Vimes and others have ignored thus far. Take a read, and then post.

Coriolanus

Jakkass wrote: »

Nevore: The Bible being wrong simply isn't the issue if it is describing what happened historically. I think it's royally petty, and indeed it's inaccurate criticism. It's quite funny that people need to resort to this level of pettiness to dismiss it.

Sam Vimes: There's no need for that. You've accused me of dishonesty in the past on at least one occasion if I recall.

Not really, I can dismiss it purely on the basis that it says a guy was ressurected. There's any number of alternative explanations that the historical recorder wouldn't have known about or may have misunderstood.

philologos

Separate claim, by a separate Biblical author, in a book written in a separate period of time.

We've not even demonstrated that the Bible is wrong in describing this yet before we start on the Resurrection.

Funglegunk

Hahahaha, this thread is hilarious.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes: There's no need for that. You've accused me of dishonesty in the past on at least one occasion if I recall.

And there's no need for him to accuse me of dishonesty every time he speaks to me. And yes I know I have accused you of dishonesty in the past, when I considered that the only possibility was that you were being dishonest and I actually got a warning for it from PDN himself for it, yet he feels it appropriate to do it to me every time we speak.

philologos

PDN wrote: »

I boldfaced the word to help you see it better. It is all about the value of pi because you have a vested interest in trying to argue the absurd notion that the Bible purports to give a false value for pi. The more you continue with this charade, the more it becomes apparent to everyone that you aren't the slightest bit interested in what is true. You really wish that the Bible gave a false value for pi because that would suit your agenda. This causes me to wonder how many of your other beliefs are based on similar wishful thinking.

+1, it's not that we are having an honest investigation of the subject, it's that people want something to be true rather than it actually being the case.

Sam: It appears that you are able to dole out criticism with ease, but are not as willing to take it. If you are going to make claims like these, expect criticism.

And for your comment on his moderation. It appears PDN already foretold that this would happen a few posts ago:

PDN wrote:

I predict an off-topic rant about the moderation of other fora or an accusation that PDN is intellectually dishonest / condescending / has eyes too close together etc.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

PDN, could you do me a favour please? If you want to have a debate with me that's absolutely fine but accusing me of dishonesty every time we speak is getting tiresome. Could you please stop accusing me of dishonesty or kindly shut the fuck up?

I am simply interpreting your words at face value. It's not my fault if you want to engage in some kind of semantics or apologetics to evade the obvious meaning of your posts.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I do Flamed Diving, we also have to assess the other solution provided in the link which Sam Vimes and others have ignored thus far. Take a read, and then post.

From the link:

In fact he used men to express his word and to the men of that day three is a good approximation.

The author of this, is simply a moron.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

+1, it's not that we are having an honest investigation of the subject, it's that people want something to be true rather than it actually being the case.

You want me to look at the bible with a reasonable eye and see that this was an approximation due to primitive Israelites not having access to certain information. I completely accept that but then say that I want to look at their views about, for example, homosexuality, marriage and accounts of supposed miracles in the same light and reject them based on modern understanding and modern society.

Coriolanus

copypasta wrote:

The Lord is holy, for sure, but this pi isn't. The outcome of this little (and delightful) trick deviates from the real value of pi from the fifth decimal digit on and is just as wrong as 3 or 27,5. For its time it would have been an uncanny achievement, if it weren't that there is no evidence that the Hebrew letters were assigned numerical values during Bible times. And there's certainly no indication that this number trick was known to either the vessel builder or anybody else during that time.


The number trick here displayed makes use of a so-called orphan method. An orphan method is a method that is not part of a larger system, and can only be used once, to explain one thing. Allowing orphan methods to explain the world around us will allow the conclusion that we're indeed in a yellow submarine, in the hollow tooth of an intergalactic whale that hums O When The Saints...

Looking for information in the vast crypt of Biblical Scriptures is intensely gratifying. But in any text this large, anything can be found if one wants it bad enough. A golden rule that this number trick transgresses is that information from the crypt should never contradict information in the narrative layer. Assuming that God dictates something completely wrong for all to hear and then hides something - that still isn't true! - for the numerically adroit among us, may be safely considered a heresy.

The number theory doesn't really hold water.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You want me to look at the bible with a reasonable eye and see that this was an approximation due to primitive Israelites not having access to certain information. I completely accept that but then say that I want to look at their views about, for example, homosexuality, marriage and accounts of supposed miracles in the same light and reject them based on modern understanding and modern society.

There's a difference between claim 1 and claim 2 that you have been ignoring to the point of dishonesty:

Claim 1 describes an event from a third person point of view.
Claim 2 describes a law that is divinely revealed, not the views of the Israelites themselves.

Both entirely different, and neither of these claims are wrong either. Claim 1 does a good job or backing up the historicity of the Bible.

iUseVi

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You want me to look at the bible with a reasonable eye and see that this was an approximation due to primitive Israelites not having access to certain information. I completely accept that but then say that I want to look at their views about, for example, homosexuality, marriage and accounts of supposed miracles in the same light and reject them based on modern understanding and modern society.

This.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I am simply interpreting your words at face value. It's not my fault if you want to engage in some kind of semantics or apologetics to evade the obvious meaning of your posts.

Well no you're not interpreting my words at face value. You're assuming, as you always do, that I am being deliberately dishonest because I refuse to give the bible a free pass to have errors in it, leading to a situation where people arbitrarily declare some parts to be the flawed writings of humans and other parts to be the inspired word of god. If any part of it is the flawed work of humans then I see no reason whatsoever to say the whole thing is not the flawed work of humans

If you intend to continue to imply dishonesty, please don't bother. Either engage with the topic or, as I said, fuck off.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

There's a difference between claim 1 and claim 2 that you have been ignoring to the point of dishonesty:

Claim 1 describes an event from a third person point of view.
Claim 2 describes a law that is divinely revealed, not the views of the Israelites themselves.

Both entirely different, and neither of these claims are wrong either. Claim 1 does a good job or backing up the historicity of the Bible.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm rejecting it. If they can't describe one type of event correctly, who's to say they described "divine revelation" correctly?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not ignoring it, I'm rejecting it. If they can't describe one type of event correctly, who's to say they described "divine revelation" correctly?

Sam. You've strawmanned my point again!

The point isn't that the Bible described the construction incorrectly. It's that it did describe it correctly, and the Israelites built a construction of a circular shape while not sticking strictly to pi as 3.14. It's not about the accuracy of the Bible's description, it's about the accuracy of the construction.

The other possibility is described in the link that you have given.