Would you delete a copy of the Koran?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Yes I know. But, once again, WT Sharpe's statement is a logical fallacy. You cannot prove "virtually unanimity" of anything -- or any other statistical amount, even a majority (which I would highly doubt anyway).

He used the word "virtual" because he could not say "unanimity," as it only takes one citation to refute that (and I've already provided it, by citing Bruce Metzger).

It's a phrasing that made his argument sound strong. But in logical sense it is completely and utterly unsound.

-Pie

From Wikipedia: Colloquially, 'virtual' is used to mean almost, particularly when used in the adverbial form e.g. "That's virtually [almost] impossible".

There is no logical fallacy in what I said, and I've already apologized for being somewhat hyperbolic in my original statement. There's no need to

[GrimRedBones]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

I didn't make the claim that the bible is actually the word of God. I don't believe it is. My point is this. In these times theres a whole lot of trouble being caused by a few folks from the Islamic community. I don't think they represent the Islamic community entirely, but their actions are bringing out some problems that were hiding under the floorboards for a few hundred years. Why do those guys over there think that they can chant "Death to America!", "Death to the Pope!", burn our flag, burn our religious texts, without us making so much of a peep of protest?! And then when one guy over here comes out and says hes going to do a Koran burning to give em something of there own medicine.... suddenly ...oh we can't because it would upset them too much... oh, they believe the Koran was written by God so its a sin to burn it... oh yeah, they're so sensitive! I don't see rallies in America every week threatening Koran burning... this was a one off.

And the problem is this. In Islam its believed that Gabriel dictated the Koran to Mohammed on Mt. Ararat in Arabia. No... Mohammed didn't make any of it up, oh yeah... it was dictated by an agent of God! So according to them, while its ok to burn the Bible or any other book for that matter, its not ok to do so with the Koran cause its unique. Incidentally this goes hand in hand with another belief that states that Muslims accept 'people of the book' ie Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians ect. but only if the Islam has political and legal authority in any given society. Well... I speak for everyone in America when I say .... Yeah right!! Over my dead body! See ... if they really accept us they wouldn't need to be in control! Anyway... tough luck pals... aint gonna happen.. ever.

So if you deleted the Bible, I wouldn't have a problem with that, such an act means nothing to me. The Bible is a compilation and account of Gods activites in this world, and includes the ancient accounts up to the point when He sent his son to save us( and a few things after that). This makes the Bible incomparable and a special compendium of knowledge. It deals with the most important things in life. Now muslims say that Mohammed was a prophet. They say Jesus was not the son of God but a prophet too, and thats how they claim superiority for their religion. Gee... kind of reminds me of that guy who claimed he spoke to Gabriel right here in America and then formed a sect based of it.

Look folks, with the coming of Jesus the game plan changed! Theres no need for prophets anymore, and there will never be any more. So Mohammed was not a prophet. Mohammed wrote the Koran, and while some of the information in it is correct and taken from the Bible, other stuff is literature, and 'different' versions of biblical stories.

So look... heck I'm not into book burning. I don't want to routinly burn books like the Koran anymore than I want to burn the Lord of the Rings . Literature and ideas is sacred too... but in this case a one time public act shows these people that we aint afraid to stand up for ourselves. And we aint afraid of Jihad or the Koran. Yeah.... you're right in this country we've got free speech so the citizens can decide what speech actions to take. If you're raising a kid and that kid keeps throwing temper tantrums ever time you don't give him a candy bar, do you say... oh no better not make him mad... hey, heres your twix! No way! You say, sorry, thats not how do things. And guess what... the kid eventually learns its pointless and focus on other things.

See... I don't think that what I'm saying is really offensive at all. Its a call for a protest at the extreme behavior levelled at us. And this kind of behavior gives terrorists the backing they need.

Seriously dude.... can't we rise above this kind of thing?

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

From Wikipedia: Colloquially, 'virtual' is used to mean almost, particularly when used in the adverbial form e.g. "That's virtually [almost] impossible".

There is no logical fallacy in what I said, and I've already apologized for being somewhat hyperbolic in my original statement. There's no need to

I am going to say three things, then stop.

Actually, I knew exactly what "virtually" meant, and when still saying "almost everybody," you have a fallacious statement. You cannot poll "everybody" so you cannot state with any reliability or factuality if "almost all" (or even "most") scholars believe a certain thing.

There is yet another fallacy in this that I have not pointed out. Citing a majority -- even if you could prove a majority -- is not even solid ground to stand upon. If I said "most Americans believe in God" to an atheist, how much water would that hold in an argument? None at all, because most Americans could be wrong! And numerical superiority has no bearing on truth. (I cannot recall the name of the fallacy off the top of my head, but it's on that harbinger of wisdom, wikipedia! )

And, finally, I apologize back. I did not see your response when I posted to HarryT, and I would have replied to you directly if I had. So that was my bad there.

(Would it be tasteless to make a joke about being a Christian and thinking that even horses could rise from the dead? Oh.... wait... yeah it would. )

-Pie

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I am going to say three things, then stop.

Actually, I knew exactly what "virtually" meant, and when still saying "almost everybody," you have a fallacious statement. You cannot poll "everybody" so you cannot state with any reliability or factuality if "almost all" (or even "most") scholars believe a certain thing.

There is yet another fallacy in this that I have not pointed out. Citing a majority -- even if you could prove a majority -- is not even solid ground to stand upon. If I said "most Americans believe in God" to an atheist, how much water would that hold in an argument? None at all, because most Americans could be wrong! And numerical superiority has no bearing on truth. (I cannot recall the name of the fallacy off the top of my head, but it's on that harbinger of wisdom, wikipedia! )

And, finally, I apologize back. I did not see your response when I posted to HarryT, and I would have replied to you directly if I had. So that was my bad there.

-Pie

I t aught to make the atheist stop and think for a second.... How could most people be wrong about something like that?

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by GrimRedBones

Seriously dude.... can't we rise above this kind of thing?

We have risen... we're not the ones staging weekly flag burnings.

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

I t aught to make the atheist stop and think for a second.... How could most people be wrong about something like that?

Most people also used to think that the world was flat.

[GiddieupHorsie]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

I didn't make the claim that the bible is actually the word of God. I don't believe it is. My point is this. In these times theres a whole lot of trouble being caused by a few folks from the Islamic community. I don't think they represent the Islamic community entirely, but their actions are bringing out some problems that were hiding under the floorboards for a few hundred years. Why do those guys over there think that they can chant "Death to America!", "Death to the Pope!", burn our flag, burn our religious texts, without us making so much of a peep of protest?! And then when one guy over here comes out and says hes going to do a Koran burning to give em something of there own medicine.... suddenly ...oh we can't because it would upset them too much... oh, they believe the Koran was written by God so its a sin to burn it... oh yeah, they're so sensitive! I don't see rallies in America every week threatening Koran burning... this was a one off.

And the problem is this. In Islam its believed that Gabriel dictated the Koran to Mohammed on Mt. Ararat in Arabia. No... Mohammed didn't make any of it up, oh yeah... it was dictated by an agent of God! So according to them, while its ok to burn the Bible or any other book for that matter, its not ok to do so with the Koran cause its unique. Incidentally this goes hand in hand with another belief that states that Muslims accept 'people of the book' ie Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians ect. but only if the Islam has political and legal authority in any given society. Well... I speak for everyone in America when I say .... Yeah right!! Over my dead body! See ... if they really accept us they wouldn't need to be in control! Anyway... tough luck pals... aint gonna happen.. ever.

So if you deleted the Bible, I wouldn't have a problem with that, such an act means nothing to me. The Bible is a compilation and account of Gods activites in this world, and includes the ancient accounts up to the point when He sent his son to save us( and a few things after that). This makes the Bible incomparable and a special compendium of knowledge. It deals with the most important things in life. Now muslims say that Mohammed was a prophet. They say Jesus was not the son of God but a prophet too, and thats how they claim superiority for their religion. Gee... kind of reminds me of that guy who claimed he spoke to Gabriel right here in America and then formed a sect based of it.

Look folks, with the coming of Jesus the game plan changed! Theres no need for prophets anymore, and there will never be any more. So Mohammed was not a prophet. Mohammed wrote the Koran, and while some of the information in it is correct and taken from the Bible, other stuff is literature, and 'different' versions of biblical stories.

So look... heck I'm not into book burning. I don't want to routinly burn books like the Koran anymore than I want to burn the Lord of the Rings . Literature and ideas is sacred too... but in this case a one time public act shows these people that we aint afraid to stand up for ourselves. And we aint afraid of Jihad or the Koran. Yeah.... you're right in this country we've got free speech so the citizens can decide what speech actions to take. If you're raising a kid and that kid keeps throwing temper tantrums ever time you don't give him a candy bar, do you say... oh no better not make him mad... hey, heres your twix! No way! You say, sorry, thats not how do things. And guess what... the kid eventually learns its pointless and focus on other things.

See... I don't think that what I'm saying is really offensive at all. Its a call for a protest at the extreme behavior levelled at us. And this kind of behavior gives terrorists the backing they need.

Dear terrazoids,

I think that I speak for a lot of Americans in sympathizing with your sentiment. Too often people don't stand up and say whats on everyones mind. It takes courage. I'm also a christian, and I say don't be discouraged by others putting you down for what you believe to be right. God bless.

Lara

[FlorenceArt]

That's enough. I'm out of here.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by AlQaedainMiami

I am seriously shocked by what I'm reading in this thread. I'm warning you infidels... if you even delete one word or burn just one page of the Koran (Allahu Waqbah), I'm going to.... going to..... well I'm not going to tell what I'm going to do, but it won't be nice!!!! aaargh...

SPAMTASTIC!

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by AlQaedainMiami

Grrrr... KindlleyKittenney... It is not good for woman to read so much...

yeah, any takers on that 20?

[pdurrant]

I'm abandoning this thread.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm abandoning this thread.

Yeah, that's exactly what freakazoid wants. He killed one thread before he was suspended (hopefully, that will be now changed to "banned") and now he's trying to destroy more by running people away. Sit back and allow the mods to do the dirty work of purging the psychopathic asshat.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by GiddieupHorsie

This is just so sad.... wheres terrazoids when we need him !!

Yeah, and I've got questions about you, too. Mods?

[Logseman]

This thread is going to be oh so closed.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Modern Bible scholars believe that some books of the New Testament weren't written until early in the 2nd century. I'm speaking here of I John, II John, and III John (100 CE), I and II Timothy (110 CE, written by an admirer of Paul), Titus (110 CE, also written by an admirer of Paul), Jude (115 CE, written by an admirer of Jude), and II Peter (130 CE, written by an admirer of Peter). All dates are, of course, approximate.

The earliest New Testament writings appear to be the undisputed letters of Paul along with Colossians and II Thessalonians, which are judged to be written by a disciple or admirer of Paul. All seven of the genuine epistles as well as Colossians and II Thessalonians are judged to predate Mark, the first gospel to be written.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Now we get to the more consipracy-theory oriented stuff I was referring to in my initial post. Not the known corrupt texts, or the different manuscripts that vary from the oldest copies, but the wholesale denial of the extant texts.

There are certainly some scholars that dissent from the thousands of year of accepted teachings. There was even the Jesus Seminar which voted on which particular passages were spoken by Christ himself, eliminating quite a bit of the gospels in the process.

So, sure, you can find modern scholars who will say many things. But let's just take the most basic question to illustrate how problematic this case is: How do we know the books were written by an "admirer" of Peter or Paul? Especially when -- in the case of Timothy -- we have a direct claim of authorship, and no other evidence supporting a specific "other" author?

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I am going to say three things, then stop.

Actually, I knew exactly what "virtually" meant, and when still saying "almost everybody," you have a fallacious statement. You cannot poll "everybody" so you cannot state with any reliability or factuality if "almost all" (or even "most") scholars believe a certain thing.

There is yet another fallacy in this that I have not pointed out. Citing a majority -- even if you could prove a majority -- is not even solid ground to stand upon. If I said "most Americans believe in God" to an atheist, how much water would that hold in an argument? None at all, because most Americans could be wrong! And numerical superiority has no bearing on truth. (I cannot recall the name of the fallacy off the top of my head, but it's on that harbinger of wisdom, wikipedia! )

I also don't wish to carry this particular point to extremes, as it doesn't appear edifying, but I do wish to correct a what may be misinterpretation of my intention.

In your original reply, you spoke of the idea that certain books had a later date than scholars from earlier ages assigned to them and the idea that some books were not penned by the author whose name is affixed to them as "conspiracy-theory oriented stuff." I wasn't offering the fact that most critical scholars concur with the opinions I presented as proof of the validity of those opinions (that would be fallacious thinking), I was simply trying to show that, far from being some whacked-out conspiratorial rant, these opinions, indeed, are well within the mainstream of modern Biblical scholarship.

As to the idea that you can't poll everybody, well, that's true; but it doesn't stop very many researchers from making generalizations based upon a representative sample of the whole, as well it shouldn't. Again, and I hope this is the last time I have to say this, I don't see where any logical fallacy is involved in anything I've said.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

And, finally, I apologize back. I did not see your response when I posted to HarryT, and I would have replied to you directly if I had. So that was my bad there.

Quite alright. I accept your apology. I perhaps jumped a bit quick on that. These threads do move rather quickly.