Happy Pi Day! 3/14/15.
Fun fact: pi is incorrectly stated in the bible as being 3.
@ almost 3 years ago
Lakeland, MN, USA
@ almost 3 years ago
Two opportunities today to celebrate the first 10 digits of pi!
If the bible got this number wrong, what other numbers are wrong? Six days to create the world? hmm
Even more fun: States have tried to redefine pi as 3 because math is hard.
@ almost 3 years ago
Ok, that one was a April fools prank...but Indiana actually did a long time ago
good one Skäl
@ over 2 years ago
I wasn't aware that pie was traditional for St. Patrick's Day.
Wait, is it beer pie?
et in Arcadia ego
@ over 2 years ago
Elkhart, IN, USA
But it's not St. Patrick's Day yet. It's pi day.
Wrong again, evil. https://youtu.be/ikI6Bn-ZutQ Watch all five minutes and see God make a complete and utter fool of you.
@ over 2 years ago
Johnson City, NY, USA
Irish meat pie I'd assume
@ over 2 years ago
Villa Park, IL, USA
Fine compromise there, AMi!
In case that link is beyond your level of understanding here's another 5 minute explanation that's probably more your speed. https://youtu.be/LVGWXXYYQyE
e^(i* π) +1=0
@ over 2 years ago
Murray Hill, New York, NY
Evil, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You do realize today's date is 314(20)15? "Pi day" would have been March 14, 1592. If your writings are preserved, followed, and read for millennia in the future (a miracle in and of itself) will those readers be
Binghamton, NY, USA
correct if they claim you didn't understand the concept of counting? Will they be right to say you couldn't count? Oh, the irony!
Technically, it only works if you write the year with two digits AND if you use the North American style of writing the date (since there aren't 31 days in April the rest of the world is just out of luck) , but it's supposed to be just for fun
I heard that ISIS is celebrating Pi Day
Yesterday was Friday the 13th, Today is Pi day, tomorrow the Ides of March zommmmg.. End of the world.
@ over 2 years ago
Strongsville, OH, USA
Nice spoof, My Little Bítch™
I thought I was your little bitch.
Endwell, NY, USA
What makes you say that?
511-527 County Road 33, Endwell, NY 13760
Not sure what you mean.
Still unclear as to what you're trying to say.
I believe he's trying to say he's a homo
I'm sorry that was mean, lots of meaness going on
well...happy "we're chillin' on smartphones day"
@ over 2 years ago
Cerritos, CA, USA
The Ides of March.... Beware
Yorkville, New York, NY
Oh wait, it's over on the east coast.. I survived.
So the bible was off by 0.14...not really that strong of criticism evil.
srorriM & ekomS
@ over 2 years ago
Wasn't off at all. A careful reading of the text reveals that. I hope evil was touched and enlightened by the links I posted.
Pi rhythms die
DIE VOTERMAP DIE!!!
??? Some sort of inside joke ???
color me stupid (no surprise there), but I'm not seeing where pi is written in the bible.
1 Kings 7:23
@ over 2 years ago
Bradley County, TN
" And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
Diameter = 10
Circumference = 30
Simple math teaches us that this is incorrect.
Unfortunately, the omnipotent creator of the universe doesn't understand simple math.
The correct answer is 31.41592653589793.
God isn't so good with geometry.
did the people of the time use fractions of cubits?
Southeast Torrance, Torrance, CA
Some people aren't able to understand the concept of a rim that's a handbreadth wide, or that cubits aren't typically or ever repossessed in tenths, or that it's a general description and not blueprints. Does anyone else see how desperate,
pathetic, and plain stupid these atheists are?
no Angelus, I don't. what I see are people having fun provoking each other. it appears you and Racer enjoy it.
His name is Ahmad. He's an Islamic jihadist turned atheist; all around moron.
My guess is the ancients didn't deal with tenths but rather moved to smaller and smaller units and possibly at one point would have maybe gotten into fractions, like we do with feet and inches. Still that doesn't explain why the circumference was
Midtown, New York, NY
Listed at 30cubits even.
The obvious problem with Angelus' excuse for god not knowing simple math is that only an idiot would use the outside of a circle for the diameter, and the inside for the circumference.
Cedar Bluff, TN, USA
So...by Angelus' reasoning...god is an idiot.
Plus, the ancients were pretty good at architecture and geometry back then. Assuming this thing got built in the first place, perhaps Solomon gave correct measurements and whoever was writing the Bible..
Changed it to an even 30 cubits to make this "look nicer" being unaware of the mathematical, impossibility.
are we assuming "round all about" means a perfect circle? does it matter? could the language of the day even describe the structure such that it would return the proper pi.
Southwood, Torrance, CA
all the pages before and after seem to be describing things in nice, neat whole numbers, so that if it were described in modern English, it might sound like:
about 10 feet high, 7 foot wide, with an inner diameter of 6 feet.
if you MUST find for the existence of God, you'll find a way to show it...but it won't be science. you can't have the objectivity needed to do real science. same for the opposite. if you MUST find for the lack of existence, you will find evidence.
evidence for the lack of existence?
In the absence of evidence, a claim shouldn't be believed.
The more far fetched the claim, the greater the evidence should be to support it.
@Drew - so, if the correct number was lost in translation, how much off the other shït contrived within the bible is also incorrect?
No clue dude, lots.
Sutton Place, New York, NY 10022
Pi is an ugly thing for those who don't know the math. If you have a nice round number for diameter, you've got an ugly number for circumference or vice verse. I guess it's conceivable that a scribe would have changed it to make it prettier.
Midtown East, New York, NY
Those who argue for using tau rather than pi have some solid arguments. That said, I still prefer May The Fourth for my nerd holiday needs.
Paul outta Hemet
@ over 2 years ago
Carson City, NV, USA
We are humbled by PI
Happy St Patricks
love you all.
Nothing was lost in translation. The size of the tub doesn't even matter. What great truth have we lost in translation?
"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
Good doesn't understand geometry.
The figures given in the bible are inaccurate.
Monroe County, TN
Therefore, the bible isn't inerrant.
Therefore, god's word isn't the truth.
Therefore, god is a myth.
Or, you're just an idiot.
...but unfortunately, the evidence supports my position...not yours
Dalton, GA 30720, USA
The preponderance of evidence according to an idiot?
What's the circumference of a circle with a diameter of 10?
Winder, GA 30680, USA
Is a bat a bird?
Is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds?
Does the city of Tyre still exist?
These are all things your omniscient deity had answered incorrectly.
Clearly he's not inerrant.
Your god is a myth.
It doesn't say anything about diameter in the quoted passage though, it says height. As in the height of the rim is 5 cubits and the circumference is 30.
I've explained every single one of these "errors" to you. You're too foolish and academically lazy to see the truth.
Scroll towards the beginning, Smoke.
@Smoke - yes it does.
1 Kings 7:23
" And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
"Ten cubits from one brim to the other."
From one brim to the other of a round shape is the diameter.
The omniscient creator of the universe didn't know simple math.
And he's very ambiguous.
Extremely shoddy work.
<---Is not impressed.
The bible's full of errors.
God's word is not inerrant.
God is not omniscient.
God is a myth.
So you take issue with the rounding of 9.55 to 10. There are far stronger criticisms of the bible.
Not to mention "brims" have width.
and...It wasn't God that made the pot.
anyway...I like pie.
@Angelus - we know brims have width. That's why measurements of pipe or other round objects are given by either o.d (outside diameter) or i.d. (inside diameter).
Are you claiming that the most intelligent being in the universe used the outside of the brim when measuring the diameter...but switched to the interior of the brim when measuring the circumference?
That's just stupid.
That's the kind of shït that a moron who thinks bats are birds would do.
Shoddy, unimpressive work that would get a civil engineer fired.
You worship this guy?
We're not talking about a pipe. we're talking about a custom made tub for which a general description was given; not blueprints to make the thing. These measurements aren't meant to be programmed into a CNC or 3D printer so that you can reproduce
So, you admit that god's measurements are necessarily inaccurate.
His math doesn't add up.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083, USA
You concede that man-made computers are more accurate than god.
I accept Ang's explanations for the obvious mistake. All three make perfect sense. This is just another example of the latitude needed to rewrite the text in order to maintain a coherent message.
@ over 2 years ago
Yellow Springs, OH 45387, USA
I find it interesting that the scholars came up with three distinct explanations. Had this been a statement of dogma, it would have spawned three separate religions.
@JC- that's just the point. The bible is riddled with obvious mistakes that require apologists to fabricate creative explanations in an effort to resolve them.
The book is clearly not the work of a perfect intelligence.
Christians aren't fighting over the explanation because all three believable and none require "creative explanations." It's a description of a tub; that's all. You think it makes sense to write 10.216547 cubits? What's next? You take the measurements
of the ark and conclude there couldn't be any right angles? This is ridiculous. The fact that you cleave to our like it's some sort of "gotcha" is ridiculous. Why do you major in the minor? Why is the Cross such an offense to you?
This is hilarious. Grasping at very minor differences in numbers? Lol. Yeah because they could effectively measure 0.1415 at that time? Or hey there could even be a craftsman nuance of that culture/period that settles the whole thing. But no you jump
@ over 2 years ago
Woodbridge Hills, Portage, MI 49024
to the conclusion of probably the toughest and most important question of man kind ever asks as being 'no' because someone might have rounded down a little? Silly. I feel bad for you guys.
Texas charter Township, MI, USA
The Bible is the Word of God and was inerrant in that it was written precisely as God intended. Don't confuse the word of God with God himself. We don't worship a book.
Schoolcraft, MI 49087, USA
It is the closest thing we have to the real truths of our existence. It should be revered and studied and loved. There is nothing more powerful and meaningful in text form.
@Kzoo - does the city of Tyre in current day Lebanon exist today?
@Kzoo - are you a young earth creationist?
how old do you believe the earth to be?
Lawrenceville, GA 30045, USA
I've probably asked you before, but I honestly can't remember.
I have difficulty remembering which of you bible thumpers are complete lunatics vs only mildly delirious.
Assuming the diameter was the correct measure, the error would have been over 2 feet. (1.1459 cubits), a cubit being some standard length of forearm to middle finger. Anyway, it would have been definitely measurable.
What does it matter how sophisticated measurement technology was at the time of the bible's writing? This is the word of god, for fúck's sake. I didn't think god relied on human technology.
if you're a lawyer, writing a legal guide for laymen, whose language do you use?
anyway...this has been fun. trying to apply science to faith, or faith to science leads to silly arguments such as this. nobody wins.
In my the Bible is to humanity as Jack and Jill is to a child
...a silly book that you know is not real...but you're forced to read it and made to take away some lesson?
No one is forcing him anymore racer. That was childhood, when it's easy to induct them into the cult...immature brains are easy to manipulate. So now, it's voluntary.
Is that why school children are taught the proven lie known as evolution?
Why does Tyre being brought up? It was a huge wealthy Phoenician city back then. The original city (called Old Tyre) stood on a island half a mile off shore. It was considered impregnable/etc. A causeway was constructed between the shore and island
Notice the city is called New Tyre or Sur. The sea covered Tyre. Can't rebuild it as it was. The rest of the prophecy given was fulfilled as well. With Alexander, Nebuchadnezzar etc.
Bats aren't birds.
Dacula, GA 30019, USA
The mustard seed isn't the smallest of all seeds.
Pi isn't 3
Tyre still exists.
The bible isn't inerrant.
Your a raving mad idiot.
No the Tyre of the Bible does not exist. That's like saying Brooklyn still exists after Long Island disappears under the water/sand but Jersey City changes its name to Brooklyn. Therefor Brooklyn still exists? Preposterous.
Seriously racer this is intellectually dishonest. You believe in lies to justify your Bible/God hatred
Oh wait I found the verse in Matthew that talks of the mustard seed. So the mustard seed was the smallest seed that that culture used and he called it as such. Tge snallest one that Palestinian farmers used. So what?
Tge snallest=The smallest
He was speaking their language. How would it go for him to say "oh hey there is a plant growing somewhere else you've never heard of our seen in your lives that has this dust like seed it's called an Orchid seed" john- "but wait it's a young goat?"
Matthew - "oh man a plant that grows livestock! And the seed is like dust?" Jesus -"guys guys, no... " shakes head... "forget it I'll come up with another analogy for the small amount of faith I was talking about"
If it was Jesus wouldn't he find a way to communicate with the people in a way they could understand? He was the son of god, right?
Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN
Occam's Razor would suggest that the mustard seed was the smallest seed known to the guys who wrote the book. So they called it that. Simple.
see you in hell
North Royalton, OH, USA
Occams razor gets too many things wrong.
I agree with it in principle. But if you apply it to this you would have to ignore the contextual facts. Which isn't what is meant by the theory.
He did find a way to communicate to them. He used a mustard seed as an analogy.
Schoolcraft, MI, USA
Doc Evil was using it to agree with you, Kzoo.
She suggested it was an error or made up by the guys who wrote it in my estimation.
quit making up excuses for shït the bible got wrong
it's supposedly the inerrant word of the most intelligent being in the universe
it shouldn't be ambiguous or vague...or plain wrong.
is this the standard you set for the creator of the universe?
that's such a low bar
" He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed,which a man took and planted in his field.32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants..."
Good didn't have to mention the mustard seed whatsoever. He could have used a better analogy. he didn't.
He chose to speak about this particular seed...and what he said was incorrect.
The deity you worship...the one you claim to be omniscient...was wrong.
Quit trying to make excuses.
he chose to speak...and what he said was factually inaccurate
it was errant
Bethlehem, GA 30620, USA
No it's not. Does a farmer plant crops with smaller seeds? No. So why would a farmer be planting anything with a smaller seed? Seed was for farming or crops. Let alone a farmer in palestine at that time. Secondly it is a parable. An example.
Meant to relay a lesson. You have been proven wrong about this seed issue and Tyre. It would be in your best interest not to continue this it's silly.
There are aslo plenty of logical explanations for Pi in the Bible.
Virginia Downs, MI 49087, USA
Amazing how you are so sure about your interpretation.
...And what your god meant by it, to whom this god was directing his remarks.
It was very clear in Matthew. Doesn't take interpretation.
Read your own words!
Which seed in use in the region at the time were smaller?
Ahmad, you said God could have made a better analogy. Why don't you make a better one, or are you only morally superior?
Read your bible.
He doesn't say it's the smallest of all GARDEN seeds. Jesus says it's the smallest of ALL seeds.
Your Lord and savior is wrong.
" Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants..."
He clearly had no problem differentiating the plant that grows from the seed.
He didn't say "...when it grows, its the largest of ALL plants."
He made the distinction "...when it grows, its the largest of all GARDEN plants".
But, he failed to make that same distinction regarding the seed.
Because he wasn't god. He wad just another primitive man who thought that it was the smallest of ALL seeds...just like he said.
None of the primitive men he was speaking to questioned it at the time. They too believed it to be the smallest of all seeds.
Unfortunately for these donkey riders, modern science shows us the mustard seed it's not the smallest of all seeds.
Your god is wrong.
Your bible is wrong.
Admit it, and quit believing in fairy tales.
No one at the time even considered a dust like seed to be a seed, let alone know about it. Most people today wouldn't consider an orchids seed a seed. You don't make any sense.
You said He could have made a better analogy so you must know of one, or
else you prove yourself a liar once again.
Let's hear it.
So you admit that it was people that wrote the bible...people who wrote about what they saw and what they knew? That's a step in the right direction.
I'm talking about the audience. Even today who would consider the orchid a seed other than a botanist?The overwhelming majority of people wouldn't. Seems more like pollen. Are you ignorant of the concept of a proverb?
Are you all knowing about proverbs?
Just admit you're wrong.
The most important sentence of the bible is the first. The language couldn't be more clear.
God created time-space and the universe.
Monroe, GA 30656, USA
the universe exists. How do you think that happened?
Really? I said it before and I'll say it again: just because you don't understand how stuff works doesn't mean that the answer has a supernatural basis.
It's like hearing a sound in the next room, knowing no one is in there, and concluding it must be a ghost.
People used to worship the sun. They didn't know what it was, but a large fiery ball suspended in and moving across the sky seemed supernatural.
Occams razor says God exists because it's the simplest because what you promote is more complicated right?
Anyway...it's the same thing for us when people like you guys talk about this. You don't understand it. Then spout this crap. I do understand
how things work according to our current scientific understanding. Doesn't mean it is right. Just means it's the best explanation according to the rules set forth by science in our corporeal view. Which is fine.
You don't understand how the universe came to exist, specifically. It is not nonsense to say that the there does not have to be a supernatural explanation.
Neither one of us knows for sure, of course. But you imply that a supernatural explanation is the only viable one. I disagree.
SUPERNATURAL : (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
The Big Bang is by definition a supernatural theory.
no it isn't
you just used a poor definition
SUPERNATURAL. 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible or observable universe
To suggest that anything that science doesn't understand is by default supernatural is disingenuous
@kzoo- god is certainly not the simplest definition for the origin of the universe.
It's simply the one you prefer.
The existence of an eternal omnipotent deity raises far more scientific questions than it settles.
The argument for the existence of a supernatural deity has no basis in reality.
There is zero empirical evidence to support such a claim, and as such, it should be summarily dismissed.
Even using your own definiton the Big Bang is supernatural because the physics required have not been oberserves anywhere. Adherence to that theory takes as much faith as believing in divinity.
Your very being is testament to the existence of God.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."
I'll ask again. Ahmad, you said God could have made a better analogy regarding the mustard seed. That would mean you know a better one. Are you going to share it or should we conclude you were lying again?
i can answer that one. if jesus was god he could have said this... " holy #### guys you should see the orchid seed, you don't even know how small it is because you have never seen it!"
@ over 2 years ago
"holy ####ing #### I also forgot I made kangaroos, you will never see them in your lifetime because I put them on a completely separate island but holy #### check it out!"
"Oh yeah im going to come back in the year 2025, get your #### together before then."
"lol watch me smote these romanz guize!"
Unlike you, Josh. I didn't realize you and Racer were such good buddies...weird.
But your response is fatally flawed.
Besides, let's hear Racer's response.
But, my Koran, given to men by the same vengeful desert diety, says...
Maybrook, NY 12543, USA
well our relationship is quite complicated, we disagree on everything except for pretty much this one thing i think.
the fact is jesus was wrong about the size of the smallest seed, what this means is that he knew about as much as the average man of that time knew. and to be god you have to be a little more than average.
you also have to have your second coming when you say you will and you have to not be such a prick.
your problem is you take every sentence as if it has no context, that it can be responded to appropriately and not affect anything you have ever said, its how you got into trouble with the terrorist/samson thread.
when you defend your religion inconsistently like this you open yourself up with each new statement, your god is created in the moment every time you respond,
you are giving god your own voice. and that's why god isn't real. because everything that has ever been said about him was made up on the spot by a person just trying to talk his way out of a contradiction.
when westboro says god hates ####s, when inexorable says god doesn't hate ####s, he just hates #### marriage and when rob portman of ohio says "oh well now that my son is gay I believe in the overall message of love."
your bible was written the same way by the same humans and that's why it gets into trouble.
my grandfather who is an agnostic tried to say that to say one is atheist is arrogant because it is a definite knowledge about an unknowable.
but it isn't about that, through the bible I know that christianity is wrong through the koran I know that islam is wrong and through the torah I know that judaism is wrong. all the other religions are proven wrong
as well but when every religion has proved itself wrong what does it matter what you call yourself, the fact is that the chance that there is a god (not God, because that god isn't real) is so small it doesn't matter.
that being said i don't have a problem with religion, i have a problem with delaying progress, i'm a progressive remember? i love liberal christians, quakers are awesome!
the thing is in a progressing society you must change or die and liberal Christians are really the only thing keeping your god alive.
Jesus was not wrong about the mustard seed. It was the perfect analogy for the time and the audience.
God is right on schedule. Christ will return at the appointed hour. Because some expected Him sooner is irrelevant. People have been wrong about
His return since He ascended. People have been wrong, not Him.
My words about The Bible have always been consistent with my prior statements and The Bible.
I'm sorry you don't see the difference between God empowering Samson with superhuman strength and some Muslims crashing planes into a building. Anyone,
especially at that time, could have used box cutters to hijack a plane. There's nothing supernatural about it.
All your beliefs about supposed Bible errors are wrong, and easily shown so.
God doesn't need anyone to "keep Him alive." That statement is ridiculous. The idea that God is preventing progress is even more ridiculous. Do I need to go into how
godless governments and their citizens have fared?
I'm disappointed in you, Acadia. Only the uninformed would claim Christians and Moslems worship the same God.
Jesus: "Though it is a small seed, yet when it grows, it is a large garden plant..."
BAM...I'm smarter than your god.
All seeds are small...FAIL. Try again.
This is still going on?
No need to try again.
My statement was factually accurate. God's wasn't.
I'm intellectually superior to your deity.
You're just too ignorant to realize how dumb you really are.
"All seeds are small."
Lodoicea maldivica, Coco de Mer has a seed that can reach 1 foot in length and weigh up to 40 pounds.
I'm also intellectually superior to you.
Have you ever made a factually accurate statement?
Why do you insist on always doubling down on your own stupidity?
oh my goodness! I must not be real! I was speaking in general to an audience who didn't know about some giant nut.
I would expect you to be an expert on giant nuts...based solely on the quantity that have rested upon your chin.
Wow now racer sounds like the old Angilius. Any thoughts as to how the universe came to exist? Or how life spontaneously started?
You insinuate that having a penis in your mouth is degrading with which I agree. Why do you brag about your wife and daughters ability to perform fellatio? Doesn't seem moral to me. You must have been lying again when you said you were moral.
Actually I think Angilius is both Angelus and The New Racer X.
racer sounds like racer when inexorable was around.
mhmm, interesting. The conspiracies are mounting.
Evil, I've never been a spoofer. You'll notice I immediately assumed my original identity when I could do so without being banned. I confessed to those characters before there was any suspicion that I was them.
You yourself said, "well played." I assumed that meant you had no idea. Racer/Ahmad is a clown. I've never espoused such ignorant opinions. My characters were all conservative and believed in God.
So I'm not racer, that's what. Try and keep up.
but you could be inexorable or wv conservative.
Similarity in characters is not evidence of anything. wtf.
Similarity in character was one facet of my argument. Must be toomuch for you to process at once. Underwater, scroll a few posts up.
How long have you been around? After switching to iPhone I came back and had lengthy, unfriendly exchanges with WV.
I believe he admitted to being a spoof. Initially I was leaning towards it being Josh/Adam, but it could have been Inex or anyone.
Being gone for so long, I missed WV when he came on the scene. I missed the indicators that might have made it possible to ascertain WV's original identity.
why do you care so much? it's almost obsessive.
Because he's an ignorant hypocrite whose arguments can't stand on their own merit.
Greater Valley Brook, Scottdale, GA
The admitted spoofer is suddenly concerned about spoofing.
I point out the obvious flaws in his logic, and his response isn't to defend his position...but to make baseless accusations against his opponents.
His circular reasoning and baseless claims are indefensible.
This is his only recourse.
Leafmore-Creek Park Hill, North Decatur, GA
Unless you're a liberal you would understand why character and integrity matter "so much."
You fall to point out anything and don't know what logic is. You detract from the truth and ignore facts as of they are irrelevant. It's important to expose
But you can't defeat my argument, so you attempt to discredit me personally by accusing me of being someone else.
This is not only erroneous, but completely irrelevant to the debate.
you for the troll you are.
It's a loser's argument, and shows how weak your position is.
The bible isn't inerrant.
It's full of obvious lies, contradictions, and physical impossiblities.
You're a gullible fool for believing it.
Your attempts to create explanations for the biblical errors have failed miserably, so you're attempting to divert attention from your shortcomings.
Unfortunately, your attempts at distraction have also failed.
You are a failure.
I've shown each and every argument you've made for the rubbish it is. I've only failed according to you, but you're a moron.
No you've failed according to almost everyone who's read these threads.
i agree with racer that there are plenty of errors, hypocrisies, and untruths in the bible.
But I don't think that in any way, shape or form disproves the existence of God.
It just means Christians are not the best at writing books.
i am actually everyone here, i created this site and i keep the conversation going. this is the lost episode of the outer limits that never finished being written.
actually there is something incredibly supernatural about a couple hijackers taking over entire planes full of people and hitting high profile targets while the most intrusive government in the world didn't expect it.
it would seem they accomplished a feat much more powerful than one guy knocking down a couple pillars and killing a bunch of women and children when the building collapsed.
and we actually know 9-11 happened, samson, not so much.
The government played the jihadist like their puppets. Wake up. The government was behind it. They tried to knock them down in '93. Used an imam to manipulate a couple of literally retarded muslims into turning their van into a bomb and parking it in
the basement. ahmads were so dumb they made the bomb wrong and parked the van on the wrong spot. Then they tried to try the imam, but unbeknownst to them the imam recorded the meetings with the FBI. The imams won a multi-million dollar settlement and
moved to Egypt. Look it up. Want picked up by the main stream media like it should have been because obviously the media are lap dogs. I've talked about this before. Look it up. NYT ran a story about it.
There are no errors in The Bible. If you choose not to believe it's probably because you haven't put on the time to do the research. People like racer reject God for two reasons: They are dumb/pig-headed and don't want to give up their sinful lives.
The bible doesn't pass any tests of scrutiny for its validity.
As stated previously...claiming the bible is true because the bible says it's true is circular reasoning.
You have nothing.
This dialogue isn't progressing, and we're just repeating ourselves.
You have no intention of evaluating the evidence, and are willing to believe any ridiculous claim that supports biblical principles, regardless of the mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary.
There is no reasoning with you.
The only positive outcome of this thread it's that you've been exposed, again, for the lunatic that you are, and your entire position has suffered as a result of your support for it.
Thank god religion is dying.
So saith the Moron!
Town of Union, NY, USA
Nice deflection of the actual argument.
Can't say that I blame you for avoiding the debate.
I wouldn't want to try to defend your position, either.
Stone Mountain, GA 30087, USA
Your argument has no basis in reality.
You belief has no merit.
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith the Moron, I will pour out stupidity upon all Votermap. (The Book of Ahmad)
That book is true.
That's why it's called "faith". You gotta have it to believe in stuff you can't see, touch, hear, smell, taste, or otherwise prove in any way.
South St Anthony, St Paul, MN
what i just witnessed was racer turning angelus back into the old angilius in what i suppose was several weeks. he does seem to be superior to god.
again...this is what he did with inexorable. going for a repeat performance, racer? I don't think I've ever seen angelus in full meltdown mode though.
Breaking fundamentalist Christians (those who believe in the inerrant, literal word of the bible) is a simple task.
Just quote the bible.
They've devoted, in some cases, their entire lives to the belief that their religion is true. They have no psychological coping mechanism to deal with the reality that it's all a scam and a lie.
It causes synapses to misfire within their brain, and they begin desperately trying to explain that the word had been misread, or misquoted, or that this particular verse is a parable, and thus not to be taken literally.
They cannot accept the fact that the bible itself is the best proof against the possibility of Christianity being valid.
The bible is so full of errors, contradictions, and physical impossiblities that once it's read...the ridiculousness of it all becomes glaringly obvious.
Unfortunately, fundamentalist Christians (particularly Young Earth Creationists like Angelus) have gone "all in" on their bet.
Their life has become so completely and utterly invested in the validity of their religion, that they simple cannot accept the undeniable reality that it's all bullshït.
They cannot argue logically to support their cause, so they have no other recourse than to lash out insanely at their opponents.
They quickly suffer mental breakdowns, and become the best possible support against their own cause.
Don't get me wrong...I have zero expectation that these people will ever admit their defeat or change their stance on religion.
But they do serve a bigger purpose.
They help to win the undecided people over to agnosticism and atheism.
People unsure of what they believe will witness a debate like this, and determine that religion is irrational.
Open discussion of religion will inevitably lead a rational thinker to atheism.
The internet will be the death of religion.
If it is so obvious why do so many lie about what it contains? The only way it is so 'wrong' is if you put all logical reasoning aside / take things out of context then plug your ears to any possible explanation. I haven't been paying attention to
this whole thread between you and angelus but make no mistake that is what you are doing.
okay...if you want to keep this up, so be it
Clarkston, GA, USA
You say. 'they cannot argue logically' and when they do you ignore it/switch topics/attack something else. Don't pretend you are some sage of reason. You are not.
Why does god think bats are birds?
Start your ridiculous explanation.
DeKalb County, GA
@kzoo - how old do you believe the earth to be?
Decatur, GA 30032, USA
in which crazy camp do you pitch your tent?
are you a biblical literalist?
Did the modern biological category exist when the Bible was written? Did thr Hebrews call bats... Birds?
Guess what they did. No one considered bats as mammals or different from birds in that era as far as I know.
All flying animals were considered birds.
Your biggest arguments are semantics that can be explained without logical leaps.
1. Bats aren't birds.
2. The bible says bats are birds.
I rest my case.
Grant Park, Atlanta, GA
The most intelligent being in the universe didn't have to repeat the stupidity of the primitive men who wrote the bible.
He could have either corrected their error...or ignore the subject altogether.
Instead, this omniscient being decided to repeat their error.
And I rest mine. You are the ridiculous logic one here. It's obvious. You aren't even thinking.
The Bible and belief in God does require faith. Don't forget that. Not everything is explainable. Nor could we even comprehend everything if God were
That makes him both errant and stupid.
Your desperate attempts to explain away his error and stupidity only show you for the gullible sheep you are.
Let's move on, shall we?
Obvious biblical contradiction time.
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
to site down and explain it. It was designed this way. It is how the wheat is separated from the chaff.
We are on a need to know basis with God. He owes us nothing. He is God. Every human adjective to describe him falls short in every way.
So while athiests scoff at his "murdering" or meanness or *fill in the blank.... They are wrong. Why? Because he is God. He knows more and has thought about his actions more he comprehends more.. The list goes on... More than any human possibly could
It is beyond our capability as humans to get it. Don't you understand this? God is responsible for everything around you and you being the ant in the ant farm don't get it. (you are not alone no one understand it fully)
So the Bible addresses the most important things...a book written for ants to help them understand the important things. Yet you are worried about bats and birds because 4000-6000 years ago your fellow ant society hadn't come up with a better word
For a flying mammal.
It doesn't matter what you think or what logic you have based on your tiny little hole in the ground you formed around you with elements and atoms God created. Nothing changes the fact that He is God.
The Bible was written for a people of a certain time. So nuances can get lost or need further study. If it was written today he'd probably lay down a few thousand scientific articles with math and science we haven't even imagined but dumbed down
enough for us to get the idea. Then we would spend the next mileniums or 4 or 6 debating it.
Kzoo - That is cute and all. But what you fail to grasp is that those who haven't chosen your lifestyle choice and mythology don't share your pessimistic and negative views of ourselves. I know I don't feel as worthless and you do.
Further, I don't scoff at your god. I mock a subset of those who believe in it (and other gods as well) when they do the dance you do to maintain the mythology. The Bible was written for a certain time by humans who knew very little about the world.
You say god is wise beyond measure.
You say the bible is the Word of god.
You say god is infallible.
I show you a clear and obvious error in the bible.
90-116 Georgia 42, Atlanta, GA 30316
You reply that god is so smart that we can't understand him.
No. That's not true.
I understand just fine.
They did their best. But rather than acknowledge that, your type has had to tack on convoluted explanations to keep up this act that it isn't just fable and myth intended to teach a lesson but instead fact and history.
The claim that bats are birds is blatantly wrong.
Why would an omniscient being say that?
Why would he repeat the error of the primitive man of the age?
Again, it is only a subset that push that spin. And it only a subset that aggressively attack others for not being as pessimistic as them. And it is only a subset who scream "persecution!" when their attacks are resisted.
I sadly must make that clarification to avoid being labeled as bigoted by those with the martyr fetish.
If it was improperly translated, that creates a whole new conundrum. What else in the bible is mistranslated? Can we trust the reliability of any of it?
Druid Hills, Atlanta, GA
these "discussions" make it clear why objectivity is required for critical thought and the scientific process. not many arguing here have the ability to be objective or scientific about this topic.
Old Town Torrance, Torrance, CA
Is there scientific evidence supporting the existence of a deity?
Scottdale, GA, USA
what scientific evidence would prove to you that there is a god outside of it appearing before your very eyes?
Which god? The first step would be to clearly define the deity being investigated.
Any empirical evidence...for any deity?
Anything measurable and demonstrable?
Paul, any god
Elmhurst, IL, USA
AMi - Do you feel that qualifies as being clearly defined?
Ok let's go with Zeus
Northlake, IL, USA
before even asking for empirical evidence, one MUST ask oneself "can I be objective about the results? do I have any biases or preconceived notions regarding the question?"
This article suggests that the Universe is timeless as we know it....just like a god...maybe not the Christian God but a god all the same
if you say no to the first and/or yes to the second; then you won't be able to address the question scientifically.
the question in this thread is not about the existence or non-existence of a deity, but whether the bible has internal or external inconsistencies.
if you have a bias one way or another, it will be nigh on impossible to discuss it objectively. racer appears to have an "inconsistency" bias, while kzoo and angelus appear to have a "consistency" bias. if these biases hold true...
...the resulting discussion will be purely popcorn fodder.
anyone want some popcorn?
@AMI- how does a timeless universe prove the existence of a deity?
There is no correlation there whatsoever.
AMi - Does the word "Zeus" alone clearly define that deity? Based on this app, Zeus could be a head of lettuce. A hyper emotional head of lettuce.
@Undrwater- have I stated anything that's factually inaccurate on this thread regarding biblical errors?
I never used the word prove. But a timeless universe is something beyond our imagination as well. It reduces the audacity of believing in a god.
As your usage re: the link you provided shows, the word "god" is far to open ended. It rarely has a clear definition. Thus is becomes impossible to talk about evidence for it.
Anyone can hit a bullseye if they get to draw it after the fact around where the arrow hit.
@AMI - again. no correlation to the existence of a deity.
Do you have any empirical (measurable, observable) evidence for the existence of the Christian god of the bible?
In the absence of evidence to support a claim, it shouldn't be believed.
You have stated inaccuracies. Claiming the calling of a bat a bird in the Bible an error is an intellectual dishonesty and false.
Undrwater I am very open to reasonable discussion but racer doesn't have a reasonable bone in his body in regards
God. He's blind as a bat. Pun intended.
I do recognize my biases, he doesn't.
Every single error has a very sound explanation. The only potential errors that can be in there are likely scribe errors. Even then the statistical textual integrity of the Bible is off the charts compared to any other historical record.
I disagree Kzoo. The god-exists bias is very strong in you but I don't think you see it.
Nothing wrong with having that bias if you recognize it. As you say.
The science of statistics alone indicate a God or creator. Not just random happenstance yet this isn't good enough. For instance.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/why-the-earth-will-never-be-invaded_b_6879216.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
I am biased towards the existence of God
Racer is biased towards atheism which is why we see a timeless universe so differently
How does a timeless universe prove the existence of god?
Explain that logical leap.
@Kzoo - how does that article prove the existence of god?
Another logical leap.
You keep using the word prove as if I ever did.
I never claimed it was.
But to believe that such a space exists outside without an equally timeless energy (god) is illogical to me
Okay...how does your article indicate the existence of god?
Kzoo - Lanza peddles woo. He routinely invokes the lottery fallacy when he steps outside his expertise to talk about quantum-this and quantum-that.
So...your entire argument is the 'God Of The Gaps Logical Fallacy'.
You don't know something...so god must be the answer.
That's a big fail.
And that WSJ article he cites is also riddled with errors. Many actual scientists have expressed their disagreement with that author's (not a scientist) conclusions.
That wasn't the purpose of the article. It doesn't indicate the lack of existence either.
Timeless energy? What does that even mean? I guess it is illogical to believe in a universe without The Force.
That's not the only article talking about the statistical improbability of our existence. That is just a recent one.
What is gained by labeling anything and everything we don't currently have a solid answer for with the term "god"? What use is saddling it with all the baggage that word carries?
The only use I can see is to have something you can point to and say it is proof. If there is another reason I would like to hear it.
Yes evil I'm responding in kind to the anti god fervor from racer. I know i am.
There is enough evidence to believe. It is solely whether you are open to it or not. And yes faith. It is the guiding hand to who will be saved and who will not.
Before you can discuss salvation, you need to establish that God exists. you have failed to do so
Again I ask, do you have any empirical evidence for the existence of God?
It is so by design. Why? No one knows. Because we aren't God. You will not receive straight unwavering empirical evidence besides everything around you. That's the way it works..at least until the end.
Faith is belief in something without good reason.
I have little use for it.
Tucker, GA, USA
the author was unable to overcome his own bias in order to be objective. he was unwilling to accept the possibility of not-God.
Torrance, CA, USA
So you think.
kzoo, your own bias hindered you from seeing the possible flaws in his arguments, or perhaps accepting any criticism of his work. you've accepted your bias. this is it at work.
racer, I never questioned your accuracy, only your bias.
as for proof...what does it mean? do scientists say they proved anything?
no...they provide empirical evidence for their theories
if you are claiming that a deity exists...the burden of proof lies with you to provide evidence to support your claim.
otherwise, it should be dismissed as not credible
I'm stating that I haven't been provided sufficient evidence to believe the claim of the existence of god.
I am unconvinced
that's not true, it should be deemed as unverifiable
Kzoo - That isn't the only article to use the lottery fallacy. It is only one of the most recent ones. They all fail in similar ways. They tend to wrongly assume a conclusion is THE conclusion.
I have not been hindered by my bias. I considered the errors he presented and summarily debunked them as being non-errors
Using the lottery analogy, they mistake the odds for John Smith winning (which are low) for the odds of anyone winning (which are rather high). Or they find the winner after the fact and declare it predestined based on the the lower odds.
It is my bullseye comment from earlier all over again.
-most likely. And he just repeats himself and covers his eyes and ears. Talking the most and talking the loudest doesn't make you correct.
@AMI - what is unverifiable?
Sandy Springs, GA, USA
@Kzoo - how old do you believe the earth to be?
you keep dodging this question for some reason
Racer, that God created the universe
Or that the universe and God are intertwined
How did you make determination that it's unverifiable?
I thought the guy was supposedly omnipotent.
does not credible == not verifiable?
Exactly lack of verification is not equal to lack of credibility
Addison, IL, USA
I don't have a strong opinion on the age of the earth. It's not really important to me.
I've heard the 4k and many many varying estimates from the scientific community.
kzoo, I showed my own bias earlier by not reading the article. here's a quote from it now that I've read it: "A scientific theory, biocentrism, provides the explanation -- and predicts we're alone. "
no prediction of God.
On and on and on. What gets solved? Nothing. Believers believe and non believers don't. No argument is going to change that. I don't have empirical evidence of George Washington either. But .............
@ over 2 years ago
AMi - It should be noted that Zeus doesn't fit the timeless energy idea of a god. And western religions tend to view their gods as external creators while eastern ones use a universe=god idea.
I just find it amusing how with almost every post you reinforce the need for the clear definition I called for before.
Yeah I didn't say the article talked about God. It was just one of many that talked about the statistical probability of our existence.
Yeah, my response didn't mention gods. It addressed the error in the assumptions they use to support the statistics. The probably of OUR existence is not the same as the probability for life in general.
That is a very important distinction that you appear to be willfully ignoring, Kzoo. My lottery analogy explains it. Did you read it? Understand it? Ignore it?
@Kzoo - you've heard someone in the scientific community state the Earth's age as 4,000 years?
Perimeter Center, Sandy Springs, GA
@PLC- you're fücking kidding, right?
No empirical evidence of the existence of George Washington?
Brookhaven, GA, USA
Oh, the ignorance!
holy shït, your stupidity is glaring and hilarious
Atlanta, GA 30360, USA
That's absolutely the funniest shït I've heard...possibly ever.
" Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. "
South Redondo, Redondo Beach, CA
that's from Wikipedia...take it for what it's worth. I just figured it as coming next. ;-)
I like this one better: " Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method. "
I was responding to undrwater paul
that's from livesvience.com
Empirical evidence is that which is demonstrably true, measurable or observable.
This is one of the reasons i dont like this app. It's a bunch of people yelling at once in the same room.
Atlanta, GA 30340, USA
Jesus Fücking Rodriguez
Obviously you don't understand the definition of empirical. I'm not surprised.
one of us clearly doesn't
Gwinnett Village, GA, USA
oh, the stupidity
Is it your position, PLC, that empirical evidence doesn't exist for the existence of George Washington?
this is classic
Norcross, GA 30093, USA
"originating in or based on observation or experience"
I'm sure your dumb ass think you know more than the dictionary as well. Your over inflated gay ego wont allow otherwise.
Is it your position that empirical evidence doesn't exist for the existence of George Washington?
candy from a retarded baby
Kzoo - Got it. That is why I tend to begin with the persons handle to aim it. But did you see my earlier response re: the flaws in the stats?
D-O Y-O-U U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D T-H-E D-E-F-I-N-I-T-I-O-N O-F E-M-P-I-R-I-C-A-L?
So easy even a georgia redneck can understand
I'll wait for your answer. Feel free to throw in your typical gay references in the meantime. You do projection oh so well!
I present "Racer's" latest outburst as exhibit G(?). We all remember Ahmad's inability to play nice with others.
yes. I do.
I'm certain that you do not
see...I answer questions.
let's see if you're capable of doing the same, dummy
Gwinnett County, GA
Squirm, dummy, squirm
this shït is E-A-S-Y
I will answer your question after you verify that you understand the definition of empirical. I want to make sure the dumb ass I'm talking to is as dumb as I think he is.
Should I provide you with more definitions?
Apparently it's not that easy to you.
you should quit dodging the question, dummy
keep squirming, dummy
is this VM Retard Day?
It must be. You're here. Again.
Entiende la definición de empírica ?
Maybe that'll help.
I TOLD y'all it was coming next!! B-)
Redondo Beach, CA, USA
you're gonna wanna keep deflecting, dummy
you're comically stupid
Squirming? Are you really that stupid? Don't answer that. I already know. Your inability or unwillingness to answer gives me the answer I already know. You have been using a word you really don't understand. All day!
" I don't have empirical evidence of George Washington either"
It's not too late to claim to have misspoke.
What's it gonna be, stupid?
Who the #### is deflecting? Do you understand the definition of empirical. We can go around this all day and night. I even provided you a link to make it easy for you. Are you that stupid?
I don't have empirical evidence. Because I understand the definition of empirical. Do you?
I have as much empirical evidence of GW as any of these guys have of god.
If you stopped long enough to realize what you were saying, you might be able to understand that. But youre too busy being a dick to take notice.
If you misspoke you misspoke. It wont be your first time. But it would be the first time youve admitted it.
Holy shït, I didn't think you'd take the bait!
That's what I get for giving you credit for any semblance of intelligence.
Allow me to mentally rape you now.
You're gonna want to lay still.
This is going to hurt.
You love the gay references. Idiots do that. To cover for deeper ####.
Braselton, GA 30517, USA
Like I thought. You dont understand the meaning of empirical. LMMFPRAO!!!!
Thank you. Now go rape yourself. Again
Hoschton, GA 30548, USA
More non empirical evidence. Thats awesome. Thanks for proving my point. Over and over again. I guess the dumb redneck stories are true.
There are fücking mountains of empirical evidence proving the existence of George Washington, you goddåmn idiot.
Jackson County, GA
Historical records, his personal affects, his written papers, thousands of letters to and from his contemporaries, his corpse, etc...
How sad. When you learn big words you should actually learn what they mean as well. Spelling alone isn't doing it for you.
You have just proven yourself to be absolutely fücking retarded.
Get the fück out of here, you stupid imbecile.
I don't think you understand the meaning of "empirical evidence," Ahmad.
Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
He obviously doesnt. It's a mixture of funny and sad.
dumb dumb is doubling down on his stupidity!!!
Are you now stating that Washington's corpse isn't empirical evidence of his existence?
oh your fücking god, this is awesome!
stop drooling. You've embarrassed yourself enough. Either apologize or walk away. Your continued defense of something you obviously know nothing about is pathetic.
the delicious irony of this guy trekking me that I don't understand empirical evidence
Christ, I hope you don't delete these posts when you finally figure out how fücking stupid you are.
Jefferson, GA 30549, USA
"Historical records, personal effects, written papers, thousands of letters"... like The Bibm le?
Are you arguing for the existence of George Washington or God?
You've seen his corpse? ####ing awesome! I always knew you were an old fart. but damn!
keep telling me how there's no empirical evidence for the existence of George Washington!
"Historical records, personal effects, written papers, thousands of letters" aren't empirical evidence
Keep telling me how you know what a four syllable word means. Better yet, keep telling yourself that.
I don't know why I would expect you to understand it. A simple word like "faith" completely eludes you.
I know what faith is. it means to believe something without a good reason.
it's what stupid people do
Jefferson, GA, USA
I bet you got loads of it
Go buy a dictionary. It'll do you good.
Are fossils empirical evidence for the existence of dinosaurs?
Do you understand the meaning of empirical?
"Empirical evidence is that which is demonstrably true, measurable or observable." Is this what you're sticking with?
Dude, the back of my hand hurts from slapping you around. I'm going for a brew. Have a good night. In the meantime, check this out. It's a new thing. click here> google.com
I'll have to scroll up and see what prompted Ahmad to take this thread off track. Someone find God?
547-595 County Road 33, Endwell, NY 13760
@PLC- are fossils empirical evidence for the existence of dinosaurs?
what's funny is that plc is working you, racer. I doubt he cares about the veracity if his claims. I hope YOU'RE having fun.
Artesia, CA, USA
I'm having a blast. This is a riot.
This is the funniest thread I've seen in a long time.
I think he's a kook, and is demonstrably wrong...but he'll never admit it.
It's the same as when he posted for weeks the lie about Smoke being gay. He doubled down on his lie, and was publicly made to look like an absolute fool.
I love to hear the Jesus freaks stutter and stammer when they're asked to defend their irrational belief in god.
The claims get more and more ridiculous.
The George Washington shït was hysterical.
The smart ones...like Skal...readily admit that their is no rational justification for their faith. That they simply believe because they want to believe.
The dummies, on the other hand, are convinced that they can prove god exists.
It's hilarious to watch them try.
so does George Washington exist or not?
and as much as I genuinely despise PLC he did manage to flip the script on racer in a hurry.
Field trip to Mt. Vernon to open up the tomb?
@ over 2 years ago
That sort of evidence wouldn't be empiric enough, now would it?
Could be anyone's bones...there must have been some sort of devious plot where someone other than George Washington was buried in his tomb.
I was embarrassed for racer. Hope he's ok.
@Smoke - how exactly did he 'flip the script'?
There is a tomb with Washington's bones in it and PLC is the one who doesn't think that's enough evidence that Washington existed.
That's pants on head ...
The skeletal remains of George Washington are most definitely empirical evidence for the existence of George Washington.
Observation is a critical component of empirical evidence.
That doesn't mean you had to witness the dinosaur while it lived.
The fossil remains are empirical evidence for their existence.
Are you suggesting that any event or person not witnessed first hand...in person...is unverifiable?
This is fücking hilarious.
You having a conversation with yourself is hilarious.
You appeared to misuse empirical
History is a great example of belief without empirical data. Another great example is morality....does morality exist despite the lack or empirical evidence.
I'm still trying to figure out what's worse.
PLC's argument itself, or his confidence that he's making a valid, rational argument.
Should we do away with all philosophy because it cannot be tested and falsified?
now I'M being worked!
Archaeology definitely uses empirical evidence to validate events.
@Smoke - how did I misuse empirical?
The definition was posted for you. Read it.
Vestal, NY 13850, USA
bones in the Washington tomb would be empirical evidence for the question: "are there bones in Washington's tomb?", though I don't think it reaches the quality of empirical for the question: "are the bones in Washington's tomb actually Washington's?"
I believe you'd need more supporting evidence in order to qualify it as empirical. so the confusion for me is; if a body of evidence is put forth as empirical, is it possible for each individual piece of that body to also be considered empirical
I've had it with all of this crap, is golf any fun?
Only if you are a masochist
try SCUBA! :-)
Is that you, "giraffes?, giraffes!"?
@undr - for historic events and people, empiric data saved in the form of records is all that's possible. The observations were made, just not directly by us.
The challenge is the veracity of the data as it travels
Through time. Travel to mount Vernon sometime and it's easy to see how things have been preserved.
Long story short, plc's argument is embarrassing.
No it's not. Could be lies. Undoubtedly, the historical George Washington is not the man, George Washington. Take for example, Mao and Stalin or even Chavez. There are such fabrications surrounding them on their respective countries that it's
impossible to know the true men. Is there ever one version of history? There simply is no way to empirically prove the existence of George Washington.
All this mouth breathing and knuckle dragging is deafening.
Maybe you need to get out of the house then.
ok, so...records become empirical evidence AFTER their veracity is established?
Madrona, Torrance, CA
AND...I'd like to respectfully request that folks refrain from personal attacks on this subject.
@undr - only certain types. Birth and death records can certainly serve as confirmation someone existed. Likewise with facts, like "he served as general" or "was first president".
Accounts of historical events are
Subjective and less reliable for specific details.
In other words, I wouldn't look for a narrative on one of the battles he led as proof of his existence, rather something more objective
would you consider bones in the tomb, by themselves, to be empirical evidence?
if they could match the teeth to dental records
or bones to known injuries
Bones by themselves, no.
Bones in a tomb marked George Washington, next to another tomb with his wife, on his property AND the site has been recognized as his resting place since his death
Nope, no empiric evidence
They have his dentures.
And you know they are his because of the engraving says so
It's really Lincoln in there.
The context of each piece of evidence and their relation completely ignored.
Have you notified the Smithsonian that there's no evidence GW existed?
Everyone needs a good laugh now and then.
Apparently the NY academy of medicine is going to have to figure out who's teeth those are...
Don't go full PLC, AMI
obviously GW existed and there is plenty of evidence
Still not empirical evidence.
This will go until Tau Day.
Let's not move the goalposts.
Binghamton, NY 13905, USA
BTW, that was a good one, Paul.
hadn't heard of tau...that was a good one. and I've learned something new.
Pi is the qwerty keyboard and tau is dvorak.