Disbelief is not a choice

We are talking about his works, not the actual figure.

The earliest works attributed to him are dated back to the 1st century BCE; 2nd century BCE at the earliest.
 
Furthemore, the hypothetical Torah is assumed to be dated to around 1400 BCE. The provable date behind the Torah is between 1st century BCE to 7th century BCE; with most of the works being finalized in the 3rd century BCE before undergoing minimalization later canonized by the Qu'ran and the Bible in the 2nd or 1st century BCE.
 
souggy said:
We are talking about his works, not the actual figure.

The earliest works attributed to him are dated back to the 1st century BCE; 2nd century BCE at the earliest.
Click to expand...
Obviously, Solomon would have done his writing while he was alive, which would put them between the 10th and 9th centuries BC. Again, hundreds of years before the Greek fellows.
 
And if one really want to play tit-for-tat whose predates whose; the seafarers always knew the world was round. However the earliest works merely referred to this, but thy don't explicitly state how long the convention was held for.

That's why it's more fair to compare documents based on known antiquity which can be dated rather than assumptions.
 
Reba said:
Obviously, Solomon would have done his writing while he was alive, which would put them between the 10th and 9th centuries BC. Again, hundreds of years before the Greek fellows.
Click to expand...

You have to remember a great deal of the Torah was based on oral traditions. They were passed on from generation to generation until someone finally took the time to write them down. Speculations and facts don't necessarily concide.
 
souggy said:
Furthemore, the hypothetical Torah is assumed to be dated to around 1400 BCE. The provable date behind the Torah is between 1st century BCE to 7th century BCE; with most of the works being finalized in the 3rd century BCE before undergoing minimalization later canonized by the Qu'ran and the Bible in the 2nd or 1st century BCE.
Click to expand...
Sigh . . . you're bringing up the Bible but I'm not supposed to respond?

Since you refer to the Torah as "hypothetical," then there's nothing I can post about the date that will be accepted by you.

However, I follow the 1400 BC date.
 
I didn't even bring up the Bible. Steinhauer bright up the "Wisdom of Solomon". That book, at its earliest, is dated back to the 1st or 2nd BCE; and it's attributed to King Solomon.

Now, I don't means to be a meanie here, but if we have tablets and scrolls of Egyptians dating back to 4000 BCE which clearly tell us what the ancient Egyptians believed in, their rituals and so on; why are the only surviving works of the Torah are about a thousand year apart from the theorized origin? I am not trying to debunk the Old Testament here. I just want the gap to be explained. It was explained to me by Biblical scholars what we know of the Torah today are based on oral traditions during that thousand year gap.

Similarly, the ancients knew the world was round long before the Greeks. It was only referred to, but not explained until about between 6th to 3rd or 2nd century BCE.
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
I didn't even bring up the Bible. Steinhauer bright up the "Wisdom of Solomon". That book, at its earliest, is dated back to the 1st or 2nd BCE; and it's attributed to King Solomon.

Now, I don't means to be a meanie here, but if we have tablets and scrolls of Egyptians dating back to 4000 BCE which clearly tell us what the ancient Egyptians believed in, their rituals and so on; why are the only surviving works of the Torah are about a thousand year apart from the theorized origin? I am not trying to debunk the Old Testament here. I just want the gap to be explained. It was explained to me by Biblical scholars what we know of the Torah today are based on oral traditions during that thousand year gap.

Similarly, the ancients knew the world was round long before the Greeks. It was only referred to, but not explained until about between 6th to 3rd or 2nd century BCE.
Click to expand...


I JUST WANT THE GAP TO BE EXPLAINED

Well here it is......since you know so much on history and time-lines, tell us when, if ever, the Egypt nation AND all it's records were totally destroyed. I ask because I can't think of one time ever. So all their records are mostly intact.

Now historical records, NOT religious records, tell us that the Israel nation was not only destroyed several times but all the treasures and records were also carried away and either melt down or destroyed.

This accounts for the gap you are speaking of. The American Indians and tribes deep within Africa have long had only oral history, never written, yet the intelligent community readily accepts these oral history as fact. Where is the fairness?
 
Wirelessly posted

In my years spent in histrography, I have never known anyone who accept oral traditions.

It's usually framed as:

"According to the Jesuit (inset name) in his correspondence with the Bishop (insert name) in (insert year date), the Amerindians has long held a belief that (insert tadbit)".

As such, the limitation of the document is inheritedly built into the sentence.
 
Last edited:
Steinhauer said:
I wasn't talking about the earth being round in regards to "The Wisdom of Solomon". The Book of Apocrypha is not considered to be a part of the Bible - but the Catholics include it.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to step in briefly to note that there is no single "Book of Apocrypha." The Biblical apocrypha is merely a collection of books deemed by various church authorities throughout history to be "apocryphal," (they were not considered such by the early church, for example) hence collectively called the Apocrypha. There were a LOT of such books generated by the early Christian church and also from pre-Christian days which were cut out for various reasons.

Definately worth learning more about. Very interesting stuff.

More info: Biblical apocrypha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stepping out of the discussion now. :)
 
Wirelessly posted

Furthermore, we have no proof Socrates even existed. He exists only in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Xenophan and Aristophanes. He could had been fabricated by Plato.

If one looks through the texts, one cannot find a reference to Socrates without Plato. So the limitations of what we know about Socrates is already built into the system.
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
That's what science is. In fact, that's what anything is. Older theories are replaced with new ones. I don't see anyone still teaching feudalism as an acceptable social theory; except in Tibet.

Haeckel's findings have been revised. The original 1874 drawing was found fraudulent. The latter revisions are not. Keep up with the times.

If you really want to debunk things, you need to keep up.
Click to expand...

That is quite a change from your original post on this subject - you didn't even acknowledge he was found guilty of fraud.

But, now that you did, you are claiming all his other research wasn't :hmm:

A known fraudster .... we should still believe him?


hmmmm ... ok. carry on.
 
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

In my years spent in histrography, I have never known anyone who accept oral traditions.

It's usually framed as:

"According to the Jesuit (inset name) in his correspondence with the Bishop (insert name) in (insert year date), the Amerindians has long held a belief that (insert tadbit)".

As such, the limitation of the document is inheritedly built into the sentence.
Click to expand...

You are avoiding the issue of some oral transition being accepted but others discarded. What you are stating is because a religious order guy made the report the report is compromised but what if the same transition was, and it really was, made by Lewis and Clark?

Why did you stop at American Indians and not mention Africa tribes? Did you know the first murder was a black African? The first rapist? The first slave owner? Ask black Africans. No, you don't think so? Then you must not think so because you discarded the oral transition.
 
souggy said:
Please discuss about psychology or cultural relevance. Remember, religious discussions are prohibited on AllDeaf, so play nice. So try to refrain from defending or attacking the scriptures or commenting about one"s spiritual belief.

Now this is a compelling commentary:



Source: Disbelief is not a choice | Psychology Today
Click to expand...

I agree completely with what is being said in the article. There are some things that I cannot believe no matter how hard I would try because they are completely opposite my innate nature to search for evidence. It is not a part of my make up to believe simply because someone says it is so. I am evidentiary based in my thought processes. However, belief does not enter into my sexual orientation. It is not that I choose to believe that I am heterosexual, or that I choose to disbelieve that I am homosexual. It has already been biologically determined, and the question of belief does not enter into it. The only choice I have regarding sexual orientation is if I choose to believe, given the evidence, that biological determination is involved in one's sexual orientation, and if I choose to believe that it is not an inferior or amoral behavior.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
It's not my word. That's the medical definition of deafness, and I'm telling you why it does not apply to homosexuality. Physiologically, there is no affliction with homosexuality. But there is with deafness. It doesn't matter how you view yourself; that's a point of philosophy and social construction.
Click to expand...

Correct. Because there is no loss of function associated with homosexuality, it cannot be compared to hearing loss either as a medical construct or a sociological/anthropological construct.
 
Wirelessly posted

I only used Amerindians as an example because there are huge distortions about them. The methodology can be applied to any culture, so accusing someone of not mentioning Africans a bit silly.

First off, for oral history to be used, it must be recorded through some means be it through correspondences, codices, video tapes, digital reproduction, whatever.

Second of all, historians acknowledge people who produce primary sources don't really paint the full picture of their environment or time-frame. The choice of medium and audience omits crucial information due to the inherit nature of the medium.

Like say, if I was to record to preserve the first known footage of American Sign Language, the medium is going to be black and white. The films are going to be short, and what is conveyed is the stories the signer has to share. Right off the bat, there are several limitations: it's in black and white, it's only one person signing, the stories don't necessarily tell us much information besides the signs one person used during early 19000s and any implications derived from the stories; and there is no audio. As silly as it sound, the absence of audio for an early film leaves out clues like gutteral noises, background noises such as say-- maybe the coo of a Passenger Pigeon! Inclusion of seemingly meaningless details like this could have a vastly different interpretation.

Makes sense?
 
Last edited:
rolling7 said:
Your "don't usually" and my "normally" would be close related. What is medically accepted is a person is born with two legs that walk, two ears that hear, two eyes that see, a noise that smells, etc. If any of these body parts don't work a intended it is considered, medically, a disability but the opposite of "normal" is "abnormal".
For this reason it is considered, medically, abnormal for a person to use his/her fist to "hammer a nail", as well is it would be to use a fist for any other not intended purpose. This is where choice fits into the equation: "where we use a body part for other than it's intended purpose."
Click to expand...

Who decides intent? "Intended purpose" is not a set function. It changes constantly depending upon the individual and the circumstances surrounding that individual.
 
Wirelessly posted

Oh boy, J found the thread... And there 152 replies to read through.

Sit tight everyone while she catches up.
 
rolling7 said:
No, I'm not saying DC is wrong in her statement that "sexual attraction is a biological urge."

The writer, Noise, makes these statements as facts:

"whereas sexual orientation is not a choice"

"the great weight of science indicates"

"determined entirely by biology"

Without any actual proof, Noise can not be allow to make these statements as facts. That is what my objection to is. The actual truth is that the great weight of science knows there is no acceptable way of knowing a person at birth.

BTW......I never said a person could NOT use his/her body parts for other than the intended purpose. You are totally free to take your fist and pound it into your face.....ain't anyone going to stop you.
Click to expand...

The statements you seem to be objecting to are fact as supported by the evidence.:dunno2:
 
Back
Top