Religions > Bible > Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2007 02:38:41 PM |
| Object: |
Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/300
Bible Scholar urges End of Biblical Studies - Hector Avalos
Avalos' new book, "The End of Bible Studies", is due out in July 2007.
Here's the blurb: "In this radical critique of his own academic
speciality, biblical scholar Hector Avalos calls for an end to
biblical studies as we know them. He outlines two main arguments for
this surprising conclusion. First, academic biblical scholarship has
clearly succeeded in showing that the ancient civilisation that
produced the Bible held beliefs about the origin, nature, and purpose
of the world and humanity that are fundamentally opposed to the views
of modern society. The Bible is thus largely irrelevant to the needs
and concerns of contemporary human beings. Second, Avalos criticises
his colleagues for applying a variety of flawed and specious
techniques aimed at maintaining the illusion that the Bible is still
relevant in today's world. In effect, he accuses his profession of
being more concerned about its self-preservation than about giving an
honest account of its own findings to the general public and faith
communities. Dividing his study into two parts, Avalos first examines
the principal sub-disciplines of biblical studies (textual criticism,
archaeology, historical criticism, literary criticism, biblical
theology, and translations) in order to show how these fields are
still influenced by religiously motivated agendas despite claims to
independence from religious premises. In the second part, he focuses
on the infrastructure that supports academic biblical studies to
maintain the value of the profession and the Bible. This
infrastructure includes academia (public and private universities and
colleges), churches, the media-publishing complex, and professional
organisations such as the Society of Biblical Literature. In a
controversial conclusion, Avalos argues that our world is best served
by leaving the Bible as a relic of an ancient civilisation instead of
the "living" document most religionist scholars believe it should be.
He urges his colleagues to concentrate on educating the broader
society to recognise the irrelevance and even violent effects of the
Bible in modern life."
This follows on from his article last year on SBL:
Hector Avalos on SBL
Avalos, PhD Harvard 1991, was a fundamentalist child evangelist. Now
he's a militant atheist, the faculty adviser to the Iowa State
University Atheist and Agnostic Society. He's executive director of a
group affiliated with the Council for Secular Humanism that seeks to
debunk religion. He was a fundamentalist Christian and now he's a
fundamentalist atheist. He preached and practiced faith healing from
age 7 to 17 and became an atheist in college.
.
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
21 Aug 2007 04:20:27 PM |
|
|
On Aug 21, 12:05 am, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snipped previous]
I do not use a guarded tongue even in politics. I simply tell it as I
see it. You are right, I am not capable of "guarding my tongue" if I
have an opinion, I say it.
So it's fine for *you* to trample all over other people and their
feelings but as soon as someone says something *you* don't like,
that's a crime. Okay. Gotcha. One rule for you. A different rule
for all those upon whom you look down.
I glad you are not going to comment on Al's
"rape and lovemaking" because all you could do was insult me or
disagree with me.
Okay. Gotcha. It's okay for you to disagree with others, but they
better not disagree with you. Now I know with which ilk to class
you. Thanks.
You can't come up with a syllogism that proves the
statement. It won't prove. I tried it, and I have studied logic for
a long time. I don't even see how or why anyone would take umbrage
with it. Ken
What you are is a complete dunce. You wilfully cannot see the
comparison, and here you are freely insulting everyone and anyone
whilst whining pitifully when they insult you.
Let me educate you. A selfish, arrogant, clueless, hypocritical
heartless, moronic, ***** is what you are.
Now go and LIE, after I gave you every single chance to get yourself
straight, that all I did is insult you.
I wash my hands of you and it's going to take some washing to get the
dirt you represent off of me.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 04:48:58 PM |
|
|
On Aug 21, 4:20 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Aug 21, 12:05 am, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snipped previous]
I do not use a guarded tongue even in politics. I simply tell it as I
see it. You are right, I am not capable of "guarding my tongue" if I
have an opinion, I say it.
So it's fine for *you* to trample all over other people and their
feelings but as soon as someone says something *you* don't like,
that's a crime. Okay. Gotcha. One rule for you. A different rule
for all those upon whom you look down.
I glad you are not going to comment on Al's
"rape and lovemaking" because all you could do was insult me or
disagree with me.
Okay. Gotcha. It's okay for you to disagree with others, but they
better not disagree with you. Now I know with which ilk to class
you. Thanks.
You can't come up with a syllogism that proves the
statement. It won't prove. I tried it, and I have studied logic for
a long time. I don't even see how or why anyone would take umbrage
with it. Ken
What you are is a complete dunce. You wilfully cannot see the
comparison, and here you are freely insulting everyone and anyone
whilst whining pitifully when they insult you.
Let me educate you. A selfish, arrogant, clueless, hypocritical
heartless, moronic, ***** is what you are.
Now go and LIE, after I gave you every single chance to get yourself
straight, that all I did is insult you.
I wash my hands of you and it's going to take some washing to get the
dirt you represent off of me.
Budikka
Butthead, as usual, you have no clue what is going on, or the answer.
Give it up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 05:24:39 AM |
|
|
On Aug 21, 4:20 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Aug 21, 12:05 am, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snipped previous]
I do not use a guarded tongue even in politics. I simply tell it as I
see it. You are right, I am not capable of "guarding my tongue" if I
have an opinion, I say it.
So it's fine for *you* to trample all over other people and their
feelings but as soon as someone says something *you* don't like,
that's a crime. Okay. Gotcha. One rule for you. A different rule
for all those upon whom you look down.
I glad you are not going to comment on Al's
"rape and lovemaking" because all you could do was insult me or
disagree with me.
Okay. Gotcha. It's okay for you to disagree with others, but they
better not disagree with you. Now I know with which ilk to class
you. Thanks.
You can't come up with a syllogism that proves the
statement. It won't prove. I tried it, and I have studied logic for
a long time. I don't even see how or why anyone would take umbrage
with it. Ken
What you are is a complete dunce. You wilfully cannot see the
comparison, and here you are freely insulting everyone and anyone
whilst whining pitifully when they insult you.
Let me educate you. A selfish, arrogant, clueless, hypocritical
heartless, moronic, ***** is what you are.
Now go and LIE, after I gave you every single chance to get yourself
straight, that all I did is insult you.
I wash my hands of you and it's going to take some washing to get the
dirt you represent off of me.
Budikka
You are so far out of reality, it really is sad. I feel sorry for
you, you stupid *****.( I don't HAVE to be nice, I just usually am),
but I don't take that ***** from anyone tough guy. You sissy boy. I
will say it to your face as well as say it on here if you like.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 10:49:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:38:28 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
There is a good portion of this country who believe that abortion and infantcide
You asked for logic - Argumentum ad Numeram is a logical fallacy.
I personally am not one of them, but nevertheless, the results are the same, no baby.
And, as Ms. Raymond pointed out, suicide and murder result in the same
thing - no life.
That's like saying shooting someone and blowing them up in their car is different.
It's like saying someone dying of old age and shooting them is the
same - no life. You're arguing results, remember?
No, it isn't, the result is the same, a dead person.
And your claiming that the reason abortion and infanticide are the
same is THE RESULT! So ... is it the same if the result is the same,
or is it different if the result is the same? (It's difficult to keep
things straight when you're arguing from a logically faulty position,
isn't it? You have to change sides when the logic changes.)
If you don't consider a fetus a live human
It's alive and it's human (human is an adjective, not a noun), but
it's not a person. This is a legal issue, not a logical issue or a
semantic issue.
But the rape and lovemaking doesn't pass the test for a valid
logical statement.
The result is the same, and that's your argument - the result. Did
you forget?
(I'm 54 by the way, a Republican district chairman.)
Whoopie for you. So you're a young kid and you're on the losing side.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 02:07:20 PM |
|
|
veritas wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
veritas wrote:
I am ashamed to say I have never heard that joke. If I did it slipped
my memory. One thing I didn't get that Al Klein said was the rape
part. If the woman says yes of her own free will, I have been led to
believe that is not rape. I certainly hope my assumption is true. So
why would rape be called lovemaking. Maybe my sense of humor has left
me at this late hour. Ken
It's not a joke, he's simply echoing you. If you can redefine abortion
to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
lovemaking. It's just as valid as your effort.
I don't believe that abortion can just as well be called infanticide,
and forcing a woman to allow you to have intercourse are in the same
ballpark.
Sure they are. They're both instances of redefining words to suit your
agenda. Abortion has a very specific meaning, as does infanticide, and
the two do not overlap. When you insist one is equivalent to the other,
you are doing the same thing as a rapist who redefines rape to be
lovemaking.
And we notice what you've done in your response. You refer to your own
error as two words, but suggest Mr, Klein is referring to the action of
rape, rather than arbitrarily swapping meanings as you did. That's
dishonest.
Abortion is infanticide, you just don't have to kill a
crying baby.
No, abortion is terminating a pregnancy before there is even a baby.
Infanticide is the killing of a baby that's been born and can survive
outside of a woman's body.
It's not as valid as my effort. He had to be joking.
It was identical to what you did.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 06:39:18 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:50:36 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
veritas wrote:
On Aug 19, 3:04 am, Michael Gray wrote:
Christopher A.Lee
Al Klein wrote:
veritas wrote:
We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
And we still practice grape, it's called a bunch of us.
I have not heard that 'joke' since, erm, since 1964, I believe. ;)
I am ashamed to say I have never heard that joke. If I did it slipped
my memory. One thing I didn't get that Al Klein said was the rape
part. If the woman says yes of her own free will, I have been led to
believe that is not rape. I certainly hope my assumption is true. So
why would rape be called lovemaking. Maybe my sense of humor has left
me at this late hour. Ken
It's not a joke, he's simply echoing you. If you can redefine abortion
to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
lovemaking. It's just as valid as your effort.
I may well have made a grave mistake.
I had previously and publicly classified the ill-named 'veritas' as a
willful simpleton.
I now realise the she is an involuntary simpleton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 01:53:53 PM |
|
|
On Aug 19, 6:39 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:50:36 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
veritas wrote:
On Aug 19, 3:04 am, Michael Gray wrote:
Christopher A.Lee
Al Klein wrote:
veritas wrote:
We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
And we still practice grape, it's called a bunch of us.
I have not heard that 'joke' since, erm, since 1964, I believe. ;)
I am ashamed to say I have never heard that joke. If I did it slipped
my memory. One thing I didn't get that Al Klein said was the rape
part. If the woman says yes of her own free will, I have been led to
believe that is not rape. I certainly hope my assumption is true. So
why would rape be called lovemaking. Maybe my sense of humor has left
me at this late hour. Ken
It's not a joke, he's simply echoing you. If you can redefine abortion
to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
lovemaking. It's just as valid as your effort.
I may well have made a grave mistake.
I had previously and publicly classified the ill-named 'veritas' as a
willful simpleton.
I now realise the she is an involuntary simpleton.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Michael, your posts make less sense than ever. Is insults all you can
add to these conversations? As before, bet you wouldn't say that to my
face. Like I said, I don't need to insult to make you look like the
fool you are, you do it well enough. Keep your umbrella open in case
it rains. If you would like to see a simpleton, look in the mirror.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 03:14:13 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:50:36 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
veritas wrote:
On Aug 19, 3:04 am, Michael Gray wrote:
Christopher A.Lee
Al Klein wrote:
veritas wrote:
We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
And we still practice grape, it's called a bunch of us.
I have not heard that 'joke' since, erm, since 1964, I believe. ;)
I am ashamed to say I have never heard that joke. If I did it slipped
my memory. One thing I didn't get that Al Klein said was the rape
part. If the woman says yes of her own free will, I have been led to
believe that is not rape. I certainly hope my assumption is true. So
why would rape be called lovemaking. Maybe my sense of humor has left
me at this late hour. Ken
It's not a joke, he's simply echoing you. If you can redefine abortion
to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
lovemaking. It's just as valid as your effort.
The fact that the analogy is disgusting to him probably escaped him.
"Veritas", indeed!
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 09:17:49 PM |
|
|
On Aug 19, 3:14 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:50:36 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
veritas wrote:
On Aug 19, 3:04 am, Michael Gray wrote:
Christopher A.Lee
Al Klein wrote:
veritas wrote:
We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
And we still practice grape, it's called a bunch of us.
I have not heard that 'joke' since, erm, since 1964, I believe. ;)
I am ashamed to say I have never heard that joke. If I did it slipped
my memory. One thing I didn't get that Al Klein said was the rape
part. If the woman says yes of her own free will, I have been led to
believe that is not rape. I certainly hope my assumption is true. So
why would rape be called lovemaking. Maybe my sense of humor has left
me at this late hour. Ken
It's not a joke, he's simply echoing you. If you can redefine abortion
to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
lovemaking. It's just as valid as your effort.
The fact that the analogy is disgusting to him probably escaped him.
"Veritas", indeed!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
In fact it surprised me that you would use that metaphor as an
answer.
I give you this in logical categorical statement: All abortions
result in no baby to raise, All infantcides result in no baby to
raise, therefore, all abortions and infantcides produce no baby to
raise, same purpose, different timing,
Now, can you give a logical statement in any form, QL, or SL
statements, any sentence that would make the rape statement a logical
statement? I've looked and I must have missed it working it out. His
effort is logically invalid. I can't work it out, the truth tree
equation says the rape statement is invalid. Help me out here. The
analogy is disusting but did not escape me, I just wondered why the
logic escaped him. Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 10:37:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:17:49 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I give you this in logical categorical statement: All abortions
result in no baby to raise, All infantcides result in no baby to
raise, therefore, all abortions and infantcides produce no baby to
raise, same purpose, different timing,
All successful contraception results in no baby to raise. All
homosexual sex results in no baby to raise.
Therefore abortions, contraception and homosexual sex are all the same
thing.
Now, can you give a logical statement in any form, QL, or SL
statements, any sentence that would make the rape statement a logical
statement?
Yes: Infanticide is to abortion as rape is to lovemaking.
Next time you ask for logic, don't ask a teacher of logic. (That's a
bit of logic.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 10:13:20 PM |
|
|
veritas wrote:
On Aug 19, 3:14 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:50:36 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
veritas wrote:
On Aug 19, 3:04 am, Michael Gray wrote:
Christopher A.Lee
Al Klein wrote:
veritas wrote:
We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
And we still practice grape, it's called a bunch of us.
I have not heard that 'joke' since, erm, since 1964, I believe. ;)
I am ashamed to say I have never heard that joke. If I did it slipped
my memory. One thing I didn't get that Al Klein said was the rape
part. If the woman says yes of her own free will, I have been led to
believe that is not rape. I certainly hope my assumption is true. So
why would rape be called lovemaking. Maybe my sense of humor has left
me at this late hour. Ken
It's not a joke, he's simply echoing you. If you can redefine abortion
to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
lovemaking. It's just as valid as your effort.
The fact that the analogy is disgusting to him probably escaped him.
"Veritas", indeed!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
In fact it surprised me that you would use that metaphor as an
answer.
I give you this in logical categorical statement: All abortions
result in no baby to raise, All infantcides result in no baby to
raise, therefore, all abortions and infantcides produce no baby to
raise, same purpose, different timing,
Let's rephrase this. Murder results in the loss of a person's life.
Suicide results in the loss of a person's life. There's no such thing
as murder because all deaths are suicide. QED
You are redefining words to suit yourself. Just as murder requires
one person to act to the harm of another, infanticide requires a living,
breathing infant to be killed. 90% - 95% of abortions, probably more,
occur in the first trimester, when there's barely a fetus at all, and
certainly nothing that is capable of living if it were to suddenly be
forced out of the womb.
Now, can you give a logical statement in any form, QL, or SL
statements, any sentence that would make the rape statement a logical
statement? I've looked and I must have missed it working it out. His
effort is logically invalid. I can't work it out, the truth tree
equation says the rape statement is invalid. Help me out here.
It's been pointed out to you several times, by more than one person,
that your efforts at redefining the words infanticide and abortion are
exactly the same as redefining rape and lovemaking. Mr. Klein chose
very well. Calling an abortion infanticide is no more correct than
calling rape lovemaking, or singing cooking.
The analogy is disusting but did not escape me, I just wondered
why the logic escaped him.
You're the one lying about the meaning of words and claiming your
personal definitions as truth, not Mr. Klein. His choice of example was
very apt.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
19 Aug 2007 10:44:20 PM |
|
|
On Aug 19, 10:13 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
veritas wrote:
On Aug 19, 3:14 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:50:36 -0500, "L. Raymond"
<badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
veritas wrote:
On Aug 19, 3:04 am, Michael Gray wrote:
Christopher A.Lee
Al Klein wrote:
veritas wrote:
We still practice infanticde, it's called abortion.
And we still practice rape, it's called lovemaking.
And we still practice grape, it's called a bunch of us.
I have not heard that 'joke' since, erm, since 1964, I believe. ;)
I am ashamed to say I have never heard that joke. If I did it slipped
my memory. One thing I didn't get that Al Klein said was the rape
part. If the woman says yes of her own free will, I have been led to
believe that is not rape. I certainly hope my assumption is true. So
why would rape be called lovemaking. Maybe my sense of humor has left
me at this late hour. Ken
It's not a joke, he's simply echoing you. If you can redefine abortion
to be infanticide, he's certainly free to redefine rape to be
lovemaking. It's just as valid as your effort.
The fact that the analogy is disgusting to him probably escaped him.
"Veritas", indeed!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
In fact it surprised me that you would use that metaphor as an
answer.
I give you this in logical categorical statement: All abortions
result in no baby to raise, All infantcides result in no baby to
raise, therefore, all abortions and infantcides produce no baby to
raise, same purpose, different timing,
Let's rephrase this. Murder results in the loss of a person's life.
Suicide results in the loss of a person's life. There's no such thing
as murder because all deaths are suicide. QED
You are redefining words to suit yourself. Just as murder requires
one person to act to the harm of another, infanticide requires a living,
breathing infant to be killed. 90% - 95% of abortions, probably more,
occur in the first trimester, when there's barely a fetus at all, and
certainly nothing that is capable of living if it were to suddenly be
forced out of the womb.
Now, can you give a logical statement in any form, QL, or SL
statements, any sentence that would make the rape statement a logical
statement? I've looked and I must have missed it working it out. His
effort is logically invalid. I can't work it out, the truth tree
equation says the rape statement is invalid. Help me out here.
It's been pointed out to you several times, by more than one person,
that your efforts at redefining the words infanticide and abortion are
exactly the same as redefining rape and lovemaking. Mr. Klein chose
very well. Calling an abortion infanticide is no more correct than
calling rape lovemaking, or singing cooking.
The analogy is disusting but did not escape me, I just wondered
why the logic escaped him.
You're the one lying about the meaning of words and claiming your
personal definitions as truth, not Mr. Klein. His choice of example was
very apt.
--
L. Raymond- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement, while you nor anyone else can make a logical
statement from Al's rape example. Those are not just my personal
definitions, that is why we employ logic in these matters. I didn't
see a rebuttal here, just more name calingg, boy, you guys really like
to call people names. We don't do that here, we may say you are
"mistaken in your beliefs", but liar here means a dishonest person.
If you believe what you are saying, (and I do), than I am not a liar,
as I'm not attempting to mislead anyone. Liar. Don't care much to be
called that with no justification other than a difference of opinion.
That was rude, and Al's example was illogical. Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
20 Aug 2007 07:22:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
20 Aug 2007 11:57:40 PM |
|
|
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby. Lovemaking with a consenual person and forcing someone to
have intercourse. There is no relationship at all. You quote above:
Abortion: Infanticide::lovemaking:rape, that is not a syllogism. That
is not a logic construction. You don't know how to make a simple two
premises and conclusion. I have studied logic most of my life,
someone here has no knowledge of logic, but is isn't me here. Try and
work out a logic equation on your statement, you can't. Buy a book on
logic, find out how it works. It doesn't work like that, take out the
emotion. And I'm tired of teaching logic here, so I'll leave it at
that. You guys get a life. Ken
--
"Truth does not give a damn what we conceive. We survive or perish
according to our ability to discern the truth correctly and act upon
it." - Ken www.veritasnovel.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
21 Aug 2007 03:54:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
Lovemaking with a consenual person and forcing someone to
have intercourse.
Abortion with the consent of the woman and killing a person (albeit a
very young one) without that person's consent.
Whatever detail you choose, I can use it to demolish your argument, so
give it up. You can not prove that the two aren't equivalent.
Abortion: Infanticide::lovemaking:rape, that is not a syllogism.
It is by every detail YOU'VE come up with yet.
You don't know how to make a simple two premises and conclusion.
Keep thinking that. I've TAUGHT advanced logic to smarter kids than
you.
I have studied logic most of my life
Then you have a terrible teacher.
someone here has no knowledge of logic, but is isn't me here.
That proves that it IS you. Not only no true understanding of
syllogistic reasoning, but not that capable of seeing what's in front
of your eyes.
Abortion = Infanticide is only true for the specific reasons you
choose. For every one of those constructs, lovemaking is the same as
rape.
Try and work out a logic equation on your statement, you can't.
How many more times do you want me to post the diagrams?
And I'm tired of teaching logic
Difficult to teach what you don't understand. I know. I've seen many
fools try it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 04:53:13 PM |
|
|
On Aug 21, 3:54 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
Lovemaking with a consenual person and forcing someone to
have intercourse.
Abortion with the consent of the woman and killing a person (albeit a
very young one) without that person's consent.
Whatever detail you choose, I can use it to demolish your argument, so
give it up. You can not prove that the two aren't equivalent.
Abortion: Infanticide::lovemaking:rape, that is not a syllogism.
It is by every detail YOU'VE come up with yet.
You don't know how to make a simple two premises and conclusion.
Keep thinking that. I've TAUGHT advanced logic to smarter kids than
you.
I have studied logic most of my life
Then you have a terrible teacher.
someone here has no knowledge of logic, but is isn't me here.
That proves that it IS you. Not only no true understanding of
syllogistic reasoning, but not that capable of seeing what's in front
of your eyes.
Abortion = Infanticide is only true for the specific reasons you
choose. For every one of those constructs, lovemaking is the same as
rape.
Try and work out a logic equation on your statement, you can't.
How many more times do you want me to post the diagrams?
And I'm tired of teaching logic
Difficult to teach what you don't understand. I know. I've seen many
fools try it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Al, the only thing you are demolishing is any hint of intelligence you
might have shown on here. If you taught advanced logic, what in the
hell are you doing, as you haven't used any logic on here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 08:36:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:53:13 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al, the only thing you are demolishing is any hint of intelligence you
might have shown on here. If you taught advanced logic, what in the
hell are you doing, as you haven't used any logic on here.
I was using it - evidently you're not well-enough educated to
recognize it when you see it. So be it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 08:57:58 PM |
|
|
On Aug 22, 8:36 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:53:13 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al, the only thing you are demolishing is any hint of intelligence you
might have shown on here. If you taught advanced logic, what in the
hell are you doing, as you haven't used any logic on here.
I was using it - evidently you're not well-enough educated to
recognize it when you see it. So be it.
I am well educated. You just made a bad comparison, and when it was
proved wrong, rather than say, OK, here is another, you just kept on.
By not backing down, you just looked more and more foolish. And you
said I was arrogant! You are as arrogant as any I have met.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
23 Aug 2007 03:39:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:57:58 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:36 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:53:13 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al, the only thing you are demolishing is any hint of intelligence you
might have shown on here. If you taught advanced logic, what in the
hell are you doing, as you haven't used any logic on here.
I was using it - evidently you're not well-enough educated to
recognize it when you see it. So be it.
I am well educated.
There's a difference between quantity and quality. You deserve a
refund, unless you opted for "a quantity education".
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
23 Aug 2007 07:08:58 PM |
|
|
On Aug 23, 3:39 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:57:58 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:36 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:53:13 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al, the only thing you are demolishing is any hint of intelligence you
might have shown on here. If you taught advanced logic, what in the
hell are you doing, as you haven't used any logic on here.
I was using it - evidently you're not well-enough educated to
recognize it when you see it. So be it.
I am well educated.
There's a difference between quantity and quality. You deserve a
refund, unless you opted for "a quantity education".
Al, when I say that abortion is being used as infanticide and two
bioethicist testify before the Britsh Parliment's Commons Science and
Technology Committee to the same thing and more,who you do you think
deserves the "quality education" here? Not me. Check your facts
before running your mouth. Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
23 Aug 2007 09:09:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:08:58 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Al, when I say that abortion is being used as infanticide
I disagree with you.
and two bioethicist testify before the Britsh Parliment's Commons Science and
Technology Committee to the same thing and more
I disagree with them also.
,who you do you think deserves the "quality education" here?
Oh, right, the Nine Wise Men are uneducated louts, who never heard the
word "ethics".
Check your facts before running your mouth.
Check your mouth before running it. You have no facts to check.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 02:51:07 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo52p@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Let us not forget abstinence, yet another method "to ensure there is no
baby." Congratulations, moron, you have just proven, using your illogic, that
not having sex is the same as having an abortion.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
That he certainly has lost is pretty clear. I do find it funny that using his
same argument I can prove that abstinence equals abortion. Just another
example of how silly his argument is.
--
Harry F. Leopold
³Don't you know there are children in India going to bed tonight without
capital letters and exclamation marks?³ - Cary Kittrell
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 04:37:09 PM |
|
|
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Let us not forget abstinence, yet another method "to ensure there is no
baby." Congratulations, moron, you have just proven, using your illogic, =
that
not having sex is the same as having an abortion.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
That he certainly has lost is pretty clear. I do find it funny that using=
his
same argument I can prove that abstinence equals abortion. Just another
example of how silly his argument is.
--
Harry F. Leopold
=B3Don't you know there are children in India going to bed tonight without
capital letters and exclamation marks?=B3 - Cary Kittrell- Hide quoted te=
xt -
- Show quoted text -
I've picked all the cherries I could, I believe I would have legal
problems now, so I have to be content enjoying looking at the cherry
trees in bloom now. I do find it funny that using my same argument,
you not only can't prove anything, but you are also so stupid to even
have those thoughts. Any of them. Your argument is so stupid, it's
not worth explaining the supidity of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 08:22:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:37:09 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
I've picked all the cherries I could, I believe I would have legal
problems now, so I have to be content enjoying looking at the cherry
trees in bloom now. I do find it funny that using my same argument,
you not only can't prove anything
He proved you a fool, isn't that enough for one day's work?
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 09:00:06 PM |
|
|
On Aug 22, 8:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:37:09 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
I've picked all the cherries I could, I believe I would have legal
problems now, so I have to be content enjoying looking at the cherry
trees in bloom now. I do find it funny that using my same argument,
you not only can't prove anything
He proved you a fool, isn't that enough for one day's work?
That doesn't prove anything except I can make a metaphoric joke out of
what someone says.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
23 Aug 2007 03:39:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:00:06 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:37:09 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
I've picked all the cherries I could, I believe I would have legal
problems now, so I have to be content enjoying looking at the cherry
trees in bloom now. I do find it funny that using my same argument,
you not only can't prove anything
He proved you a fool, isn't that enough for one day's work?
That doesn't prove anything except that I'm a metaphoric joke.
IFYPFY
.
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
23 Aug 2007 07:10:08 PM |
|
|
On Aug 23, 3:39 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:00:06 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:37:09 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
I've picked all the cherries I could, I believe I would have legal
problems now, so I have to be content enjoying looking at the cherry
trees in bloom now. I do find it funny that using my same argument,
you not only can't prove anything
He proved you a fool, isn't that enough for one day's work?
That doesn't prove anything except that I'm a metaphoric joke.
IFYPFY
But my statement and logic is still correct even if you are a
metaphoric joke. Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
23 Aug 2007 09:10:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:10:08 -0700, veritas <khogantwo@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 23, 3:39 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:00:06 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:37:09 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
I've picked all the cherries I could, I believe I would have legal
problems now, so I have to be content enjoying looking at the cherry
trees in bloom now. I do find it funny that using my same argument,
you not only can't prove anything
He proved you a fool, isn't that enough for one day's work?
That doesn't prove anything except that I'm a metaphoric joke.
IFYPFY
But my statement and logic is still correct
It most certainly is - you're a jerk who's a joke, and I'm done with
you. Where did you say you came from? A turnip truck? You must be
one of the turnips.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "veritas" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 03:57:40 AM |
|
|
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Let us not forget abstinence, yet another method "to ensure there is no
baby." Congratulations, moron, you have just proven, using your illogic, =
that
not having sex is the same as having an abortion.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
That he certainly has lost is pretty clear. I do find it funny that using=
his
same argument I can prove that abstinence equals abortion. Just another
example of how silly his argument is.
--
Harry F. Leopold
=B3Don't you know there are children in India going to bed tonight without
capital letters and exclamation marks?=B3 - Cary Kittrell- Hide quoted te=
xt -
- Show quoted text -
abstinence would never occur to me. I see it did you. You don't like
to get messy or something else? Going to the moon alone would do it
to. You are the moron, you can't even keep up with the conversation.
Read my last post, idiot, I don't know where you came from, but go
back under your rock and practice abstinence. The world could use you
to go extinct. Even Michael can do better than that prissy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist "Bible Scholar" Urges End Of Biblical Studies |
22 Aug 2007 04:34:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:57:40 -0500, veritas wrote
(in article <1187773060.667852.16720@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
On Aug 22, 2:51 am, Harry F. Leopold <hleop...@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:11 -0500, Al Klein wrote
(in article <hqjmc3p6n8af097ufevcf88feblhguo...@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:57:40 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:22 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:44:20 -0700, veritas <khogan...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
All I can tell you is my statement fits all the definitions for a
logical statement
And mine for a logically exactly parallel statement. As I said:
Abortion : Infanticide :: lovemaking : rape
Is a valid logical construct. If you can't see it, it's because you
lack knowledge of logic.
Al, Abortion: Infanticide, both actions are taken to ensure there is
no baby.
Let us not forget abstinence, yet another method "to ensure there is no
baby." Congratulations, moron, you have just proven, using your illogic,
that
not having sex is the same as having an abortion.
Lovemaking: Rape, both actions are taken to ensure there is an orgasm.
If you cherry-pick the equivalences you'll lose.
That he certainly has lost is pretty clear. I do find it funny that using
his
same argument I can prove that abstinence equals abortion. Just another
example of how silly his argument is.
--
Harry F. Leopold
³Don't you know there are children in India going to bed tonight without
capital letters and exclamation marks?³ - Cary Kittrell- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
abstinence would never occur to me. I see it did you. You don't like
to get messy or something else? Going to the moon alone would do it
to. You are the moron, you can't even keep up with the conversation.
Read my last post, idiot, I don't know where you came from, but go
back under your rock and practice abstinence. The world could use you
to go extinct. Even Michael can do better than that prissy.
I don't do abstinence. It is your argument that connects
abortion/Infanticide/abstinence. All are methods "to ensure there is no baby.
It really must suck to be you.
As for my "extinction," that will happen shortly, as it will to all of us.
Nobody gets out of here alive.
--
Harry F. Leopold
"The space time you are trying to reach has been disconnected..." Stony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
