OT God versus Current Era Humanity

[Graeme Dice]

Oh, right. People back then thought eclipses signified heavenly rage; you expect them to behave rationally?

I expect them to be able to time entire days. Apparently you think the Egyptians were somehow stupid.

For a modern simulation (darkness and people scared to go outside), we could simply pump smoke across the villages. Again, nothing requiring omnipotence and certainly nothing implying that Yahweh won't get his ass kicked.

Oh yes, because smoke is so _incredibly_ similar to the sun dissappearing.

Ah yes, appeal to bias. Classic attack of the bullshitter.

In your case, it is completely and utterly true. Or are you telling me that you have changed your mind on religion recently?

Got any more bullshit to peddle?

Please fuck off Wong. If we are working off the assumption that the eyewitness are accurate then the events as presented are accurate. Otherwise you don't have any evidence yourself for these events.

leeease forgive me for assuming that you would actually try to address the point of the thread instead of avoiding it in favour of bullshit and nitpicks. I see now that I shouldn't have assessed your intent so generously.

I see now that I shouldn't have assessed your intent so generously. My points are not bullshit, and are not nitpicks. I asked if we were able to cause total darkness for three days, or to turn water into blood. If not, then there are two things that the old testament god can do that we cannot.

Further, with the plague of blood, Exodus 7:21 states that "... Blood was everywhere in Egypt."

[Graeme Dice]

[quote="Cyborg Stan]2) Exactly how was his statement a strawman? You do know what a 'strawman' is, don't you? It's setting up a deliberately weak/distorted version of the opponent's arguement so you can knock it down. You seem to be using it as a buzzword.[/quote]

It was a strawman because I was not arguing what he assumed I was. I was not arguing with the statement that some of the OT god's works, as viewed by eyewitnesses only, are not superior to what we can manage today. I was arguing that there are at least two instances that we cannot duplicate today.

[Darth Wong]

I expect them to be able to time entire days. Apparently you think the Egyptians were somehow stupid.

No, I think they were panicked, exaggerating, and not particularly rational. These people worshipped cats, for fuck's sake.

Oh yes, because smoke is so _incredibly_ similar to the sun dissappearing.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Sun disappeared; it only says it got dark. Your bullshit stinks to high heaven. Not only did you bullshit about water in buckets turning to blood (God boasted, it didn't actually happen), and not only did you quietly ignore the fact that the Egyptians were able to simulate the event (two points which formed the core of my last rebuttal and which you ignored completely in your reply), but now you decide it's time to simply rewrite the text completely.

Ah yes, appeal to bias. Classic attack of the bullshitter.

In your case, it is completely and utterly true. Or are you telling me that you have changed your mind on religion recently?

Are you saying that if people don't flip-flop regularly, they must be biased? What a lovely pile of bullshit you've laid. If you want to prove bias, show that I've been misrepresenting or covering up evidence ... the way YOU have. But pretending that anyone who doesn't regularly flip-flop his position must be biased as a result is just plain stupid.

Got any more bullshit to peddle?

Please fuck off Wong. If we are working off the assumption that the eyewitness are accurate then the events as presented are accurate. Otherwise you don't have any evidence yourself for these events.

We are working off the assumption that the Bible is an historical source rather than pure bullshit. That doesn't mean we force precision upon imprecise dialogue, the way YOU have.

leeease forgive me for assuming that you would actually try to address the point of the thread instead of avoiding it in favour of bullshit and nitpicks. I see now that I shouldn't have assessed your intent so generously.

I see now that I shouldn't have assessed your intent so generously. My points are not bullshit, and are not nitpicks.

So you say, but the fact is that you DID lie about the text of Exodus, you DID quietly ignore the fact that the Egyptians were able to duplicate the feat, and you DID attack an argument designed to show that God can be defeated by modern man by attacking a point which was not particularly useful to addressing that question. Indeed, you actually refuse to address the question directly; that IS the definition of a nitpick. Don't get your panties in a knot just because you don't know what a nitpick is.

Unless of course, you think that ancient peoples can't identify blood.

If it turns red, they're liable to think it's blood. Your claim that it SMELLED like blood is bullshit, since the fucking river stank of rotting dead fish.

Of course, that would require them to be too stupid to write, but I won't let that get in the way of your relentless, mindless, tirade against religion.

A "tirade" in which you are unable to find actual flaws, hence you attack it indirectly, in silly threads like this, and through your idiotic claims of "bias"; as I said, the last resort of the pathological bullshitter.

If you've got a problem with my views on religion, then grow a pair of fucking balls and have it out. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. It's quite obvious from this last paragraph that this is not about the thread subject at all, but about my personal attitudes toward religion. Grow some fucking balls and debate my claims about creationism and Biblical morality properly rather than hijacking threads, asshole. Or are you limited to feeble sniping chickenshit like "you're biased" and "you just have an agenda?"

[Cyborg Stan]

It was a strawman because I was not arguing what he assumed I was.

Ah. Heaven forbid someone assuming that a post in the thread would have something to do with the topic on-hand, and double that if the person calls you on it when they don't go along with the new topic you decided on, and triple if they continue the argument anyway.

I was not arguing with the statement that some of the OT god's works, as viewed by eyewitnesses only, are not superior to what we can manage today. I was arguing that there are at least two instances that we cannot duplicate today.

Really? Gee, considering I called you on the fact you had the original topic of the thread wrong, you think I would have noticed.

[Graeme Dice]

No, I think they were panicked, exaggerating, and not particularly rational. These people worshipped cats, for fuck's sake.

Sure there would be some exaggeration, but the people recording things are not the panicky masses of the country but the people with at least some education.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Sun disappeared; it only says it got dark. Your bullshit stinks to high heaven. Not only did you bullshit about water in buckets turning to blood (God boasted, it didn't actually happen), and not only did you quietly ignore the fact that the Egyptians were able to simulate the event, but now you decide it's time to simply rewrite the text completely.

I'm not rewriting the text, I'm simply disagreeing with your interpretation.
Exodus 10:22-23 "So Moses stretched his hand toward the sky, and total darkness covered Egypt for three days. No one could see anyone else or leave his place for three days."
Darkness that is total enough for people to be unable to see each other can easily mean that the sun has dissappeared.

As for the blood, yes, it does say the "Blood was everywhere in Egypt." in Exodus 8:21

So you say, but the fact is that you DID lie about the text of Exodus,

Oh really? Please provide the exact quotes where I lied.

you DID quietly ignore the fact that the Egyptians were able to duplicate the feat

Whether or not the Egyptians can duplicate it does not tell us that whether we can duplicate it.

If it turns red, they're liable to think it's blood. Your claim that it SMELLED like blood is bullshit, since the fucking river stank of rotting dead fish.

Fuck you, you lying asshole. I have never claimed that the river smelled like blood. I have not made a single statement in this thread, (or anywhere else on the internet for that matter) that they thought it smelled like blood. I have claimed that the Egyptians thought it was blood and that it is not unreasonable to trust their judgement.

If you've got a problem with my views on religion, then grow a pair of fucking balls and have it out. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. It's quite obvious from this last paragraph that this is not about the thread subject at all, but about my personal attitudes toward religion. Grow some fucking balls and debate my claims about creationism and Biblical morality, asshole. Or are you limited to feeble chickenshit like "you're biased" and "you just have an agenda?"

I don't want to debate your viewpoints on creationism because I agree with them. Just ask Strowbridge what my viewpoint on creationists is. As for implying that I am one, I'll give you the same response I give to all people that call me a creationist: Fuck off, I have never in my life supported creationism, I never will support creationism, creationists are the most ridiculous people I have ever met, and I will gladly argue with them anytime and everytime I meet them. The theory of evolution is so supported by evidence that to suggest that evolution does not happen is akin to suggesting that the sun does not use nuclear fusion to produce energy.

You see, how I meant my questions to be interpreted was as if I was asking if we could cause total darknes for three days in an area, and whether we could turn all water supplies other than groundwater in a relatively small area into blood for a limited period of time. The answer is of course yes, although the blood requirement would drain national blood banks pretty severely. The simple answer would have been to point out that all it would take is an earth dam, and a large supply of fresh blood, especially in the dry season.

[Graeme Dice]

Really? Gee, considering I called you on the fact you had the original topic of the thread wrong, you think I would have noticed.

You do realize that one of the reasons to debate is to argue points you don't agree with, even if a really good argument can't be created, don't you?

[Darth Wong]

Sure there would be some exaggeration, but the people recording things are not the panicky masses of the country but the people with at least some education.

Then why were they not more specific and clear?

I'm not rewriting the text, I'm simply disagreeing with your interpretation. Exodus 10:22-23 "So Moses stretched his hand toward the sky, and total darkness covered Egypt for three days. No one could see anyone else or leave his place for three days." Darkness that is total enough for people to be unable to see each other can easily mean that the sun has dissappeared.

You obviously forgot to quote this part:

Exodus 10:23: No one could see anyone else or leave his place for three days. Yet all the Israelites had light in the places where they lived.

There was light in all the places where the Jews lived, hence the Sun was obviously NOT gone. There were only clouds of darkness over the parts of the city where the Jews did not live, which would be perfectly consistent with dark, heavier-than-air smoke. You lose, and your stubborn refusal to admit your misdeeds avails you nothing.

As for the blood, yes, it does say the "Blood was everywhere in Egypt." in Exodus 8:21

And you think this supports your claim that all of the water in buckets or any other container turned to blood?

So you say, but the fact is that you DID lie about the text of Exodus,

Oh really? Please provide the exact quotes where I lied.

I already did. You claimed that the Sun was gone. It was not. You claimed that all of the water turned to blood, even the water in buckets and other containers. However:

Exodus 7:20: Moses and Aaron did just as the LORD had commanded. He raised his staff in the presence of Pharaoh and his officials and struck the water of the Nile, and all the water was changed into blood.
Exodus 7:21 The fish in the Nile died, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians could not drink its water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt.
Exodus 7:22 But the Egyptian magicians did the same things by their secret arts, and Pharaoh's heart became hard; he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.
Exodus 7:23 Instead, he turned and went into his palace, and did not take even this to heart.
Exodus 7:24 And all the Egyptians dug along the Nile to get drinking water, because they could not drink the water of the river.

Nope, nothing about all of the water turning to blood. God boasted he would do it earlier, but when it actually happened, we saw that the fucking Egyptians dug along the Nile to get clean water, which means that it was ONLY the river water itself that was contaminated. Twice now, you have BLATANTLY LIED about the contents of the Bible in order to defend your point. I guess I must be a "biased" for pointing that out, eh?

Whether or not the Egyptians can duplicate it does not tell us that whether we can duplicate it.

Since the Egyptians were hardly gods, I'd say it does.

Fuck you, you lying asshole. I have never claimed that the river smelled like blood. I have not made a single statement in this thread, (or anywhere else on the internet for that matter) that they thought it smelled like blood. I have claimed that the Egyptians thought it was blood and that it is not unreasonable to trust their judgement.

Oh really! Please explain the following quote:

see. So now we are working off the assumption that the eyewitness aren't reliable, and don't know what blood looks and smells like.

Hmmmm, what does this call for? Oh yeah .. fuck you, you lying asshole.

If you've got a problem with my views on religion, then grow a pair of fucking balls and have it out. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. It's quite obvious from this last paragraph that this is not about the thread subject at all, but about my personal attitudes toward religion. Grow some fucking balls and debate my claims about creationism and Biblical morality, asshole. Or are you limited to feeble chickenshit like "you're biased" and "you just have an agenda?"

I don't want to debate your viewpoints on creationism because I agree with them. Just ask Strowbridge what my viewpoint on creationists is. As for implying that I am one, I'll give you the same response I give to all people that call me a creationist: Fuck off, I have never in my life supported creationism, I never will support creationism, creationists are the most ridiculous people I have ever met, and I will gladly argue with them anytime and everytime I meet them. The theory of evolution is so supported by evidence that to suggest that evolution does not happen is akin to suggesting that the sun does not use nuclear fusion to produce energy.

Ah, so your thread-hijacking rants about my "mindless tirade against religion" relate to my comments on Biblical morality then? Fine, have at it. Start a thread. Grow a pair of balls instead of pulling this shit.

You see, how I meant my questions to be interpreted was as if I was asking if we could cause total darknes for three days in an area, and whether we could turn all water supplies other than groundwater in a relatively small area into blood for a limited period of time.

Except that there's not a shred of evidence in the actual text that any water besides the Nile was affected. All you have is the line "blood was everywhere in Egypt", and since the water of the Nile is used so heavily in Egypt, that's fucking obvious.

The answer is of course yes, although the blood requirement would drain national blood banks pretty severely.

All you have to do is make it look red, which is no big deal. The stench and taste of rotting fish would eliminate any rigorous means of identification; it's not as if they were going to lab-test the stuff.

The simple answer would have been to point out that all it would take is an earth dam, and a large supply of fresh blood, especially in the dry season.

No, because you were bullshitting and claiming that you have to "get all the water that is currently sitting in holding tanks" (another direct quote from you).


Oh, say can you see ... Graeme Dice backpedalling like a fucking madman?

You lied about the smell. You liked about "holding tanks". You lied about the Sun disappearing. You tried to divert attention to my bias (ad-hominem fallacy). You even tried to divert attention to my attitudes regarding religion (another ad-hominem fallacy). You tried to focus on the fact that I mentioned creationism, in a desperate attempt to find something to claim victory on, even if it's completely unrelated to the point. And now, you're simply backpedalling on your original claims. You're a textbook example of the damage a debater can do to himself through obstinacy.

[Cyborg Stan]

Really? Gee, considering I called you on the fact you had the original topic of the thread wrong, you think I would have noticed.

You do realize that one of the reasons to debate is to argue points you don't agree with, even if a really good argument can't be created, don't you?

Yes, you can debate for the fun of it, to increase knowledge and competence in a socratic manner. You should also realize in a serious debate, staying on topic is paramount - you never gave any indication on what you thought of the original topic, or that you were trying a new topic until later. Why do you think 'red herrings' are so despised? Up until you stated that you weren't arguing on the original topic, anybody could have read the thread and concluded you were pulling the creationist tactic of nit-picking.

What right do you have to call him on a strawman when he is addressing both the original topic and your new one?

[Graeme Dice]

Oh, say can you see ... Graeme Dice backpedalling like a fucking madman?

I'm going to conceed my arguments because I am no longer able to make clear enough points about things I don't believe. I agree with you that the OT works aren't that impressive from a modern viewpoint, but these kinds of threads are boring if someone doesn't take the opposing viewpoint.

I've been arguing from a position I knew to be untenable in order to practice debating in difficult situations. I need opponents who truly believe in their arguments in order to get good debate, and good debate doesn't happen if someone isn't confrontational. This is a debating board after all, and you don't get good debate with both sides of an argument, even if you can't make a very good argument for one side. I suppose I probably should have made this more clear before I started, because most of the people here wouldn't know me from ASVS.

Next time I'll make sure to wait a couple of days after coming down from finishing 4th year design to start arguing with people.

[Graeme Dice]

What right do you have to call him on a strawman when he is addressing both the original topic and your new one?

None.

[Cyborg Stan]

This sounds suscipcious and strange, but fine. I'll stand down for now.

[Dalton]

Attempting to make this thread reappear...

[Crayz9000]

For what evil purpose?

[Dalton]

For what evil purpose?

It went away before.