As a companion to the vid, see my book The Great Nephilim Giants Debates which features Gary Wayne, T.J. Steadman, Rob Rowe, and Eric Rolon–find it on Amazon—here—or other book sellers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Such was what the Atheist TJump aka Tom Jump wrongly titled the video on his channel when he had me on for a discussion. Well, the video Ken Ammi, Evidence for God? has gone mysteriously missing from his channel and the hyperlink leads to, “This video isn’t available anymore.”
When it was on Mr. T’s channel, a certain Brian Manzolli commented
The amount of words Ken uses to say absolutely nothing is awe-striking. This sounds more like a conversation about planning a meeting to have a conversation about evidence for God rather than just a conversation.
He’s like a kid who can’t swim that hosts a pool party. And all of his friends show up and hop in and he’s standing there, poolside, talking about all of the different dives he has to choose from to get in the water. And fast forward five hours later to see him still standing there talking while the last of his guests have long since left. We know you can’t swim, Ken. It’s really not that big of a deal. Some accidental apes will be jerks to you about it and that sucks. But you DID willingly enter the ape cage, to be fair.
Péter Balogh noted
So it will be just like that till the end? Oh my…
I, Ken Ammi, replied
If you watched the video you would know that I have no idea why the video is titled as such since we never agreed to discuss that.
Now, it’s not surprising that you left a jerk comment since if you’re a Jumperian Atheist then you realized that you are literally incapable of condemning me or claiming that I did anything objectively wrong–or even that I am objectively wrong. Thus, you are stuck with a failed worldview according to which all you have are subjective personal preferences so that you have discredited yourself from any actual critique which beings us full circle to why you decided to merely emote.
Dark replied
Objective morals and objective meaning is nonsense theist garbage. Morals for a theist is just subjective commands from God on how to behave and at the drop of a hat a God could command u to commit acts that civilised people find immoral, like i dont know, like whats in the majority of holy books including the jewish bible and meaning is always subjective since meaning in things is found by beings. This entire video u just evaded talking about your own beliefs and reasons for them but u asserted that an athiest worldview has to be nihilistic because if no God nothing matters including truth. Which is an obviously terrible argument, if u were really that dense that u couldn’t see any reason that an athiest would want to survive and know the truth then just fucking ask them, like for example ask Tjump why an athiest would value truth or morals, instead of wasting everyones time by asserting that athiest have to be nihilist, but ill give u credit, at times u were a great clown for the live chat
Rafał Łabuda note
Will I send you some cream for that hurting butt? It’s free…
The Time Capsule of Patrick and Asia Harris commented
@Rafał Łabuda dude is cutting and pasting this same comment for everyone. Holy crap this guy is trash
Scott Withington
ken, he was being a jerk but then you try and respond with a concept that is way beyond your capabilities at this point. In listening to the debate, The frustration for us listeners mostLy lies in that you didn’t bring anything to the table
Ken Ammi
@Dark Let’s examine the bed you just made to see if you’ll sleep in it: “Objective morals and objective meaning is nonsense theist garbage” so it’s all subjective personal preference, right? And if it’s all subjective personal preference then you just disqualified yourself from ever condemning anything, al you can say is that you have personally, subjectively, emotively, decided to not like something.
Ken Ammi
@The Time Capsule of Patrick and Asia Harris Have you ever tested the waters to see which of dozens and dozens of people are interested in actually engaging in a discussion? I just did and we’ll see who was just making a drive by. BTW: you appear to be incapable of counter-arguing and so are just being childish.
Ken Ammi
@Scott Withington You’re kidding, right? I argued, up front, that 1. On Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental, 2. as is our ability to discern it, 3. there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, 4. nor to demand/expect others adhere to it. Tom ended up agreeing with me on each point and admitted that for him it all comes down to subjective personal preferences du jour.
Dark
@Ken Ammi incorrect, the most important of my personal preferences align with the majority of every human being on the planet, for example, not wanting suffering and injustice. news flash we have laws against assault and injustice because it harms peoples lives. While u just have an ancient primitive book that has a god commanding and commiting notrositys.
Cygnus Ustus
I don’t know how you could make up any title for the video, post-facto, and not still end up looking like a fool.
Schiwi M
That guy is totally frustrating, the first hour was already useless
Ken Ammi
@Dark And yet, on Atheism the most important of my personal preferences is still just a subjective personal preference and proposing an argumentum ad populum (not that it matters on Atheism) is no remedy.
You are jumping to conclusions, “we have laws against assault and injustice because it harms peoples lives” but you don’t bother saying how or why harming peoples’ lives is problematic, on Atheism.
You are jumping to conclusions in committing a genetic logical fallacy (not that it matters on Atheism) by stating, “have an ancient primitive book” but you don’t bother saying how or why having an ancient primitive book is problematic, on Atheism.
You are jumping to conclusions by merely asserting, “god commanding and commiting notrositys” but you don’t bother saying how or why that’s problematic, on Atheism—speaking of “notrositys”: do you believe that morality evolved?
Ken Ammi
@Cygnus Ustus I know but, such is what Tom did.
Ken Ammi
@Schiwi M Yet, what you find subjectively frustrating is not a standard. My primary points were: 1. on Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental, 2. as is our ability to discern it, 3. there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, 4. nor to demand/expect that others adhere to it. Tom ended up agreeing with me on each point and admitted that. That’s why he took the fallback position that it all comes down to subjective personal preferences based fun du jour.
Ceasetoknow
@Ken Ammi 1. either being accidental has nothing to do with the impossibility of discerning truth. 2. the imperative exists for those who care about that truth and being intellectually honest, something you’ll likely never be.
Schiwi M
you’re frustrating because you’re talking a lot without saying anything, you’re running in circles because you can’t agree on the most basic things.
This conversation was basically like
Tom: “The sky looks blue”
You: “What do you mean by blue?”
Tom: “The color blue”
You: “but that’s totally subjective and just made up by us humans”
[****] like that is annoying
Cygnus Ustus
…and you still ended up looking like a fool.
Dark
ok first of all, never in my reply did i say something is good or right because the majority says so, i said that “the most important of my personal preferences align with the majority of every human being on the planet, for example, not wanting suffering and injustice.” no where in that did i use an adpoplum fallacy, i was pointing out a fact and then i said “news flash we have laws against assault and injustice because it harms peoples lives.” no where in that did i use an adpoplum which shows you dont understand the fallacy. 2nd of all you confuse me when you said “but you don’t bother saying how or why harming peoples’ lives is problematic, on Atheism.” this is a very confused statement, Athiesm has nothing to do with morality or what some ones preferences are, its just the nonbelief in deities, beings are the ones that moral endeavors matter to, and for most beings like humans, pain and unfairness is something the majority of us hate and actively make decisions to avoid them, which is why we have laws that punish those that cause these things. so stop saying things are problematic for atheism as if athiesm is a being, unless you had good evidence for a God which would be problematic for the athiest position. and for your last question, i would say morality did evolve because through out time humans have been reasoning for how they should treat each other and i would say its gotten progressively better from the past up till now so far.
Ken Ammi
@Schiwi M Please mind your manners.
I see that you decided to utterly run away from THE main issues.
Friend, “it’s not a problem on atheism” is a mere assertion.
Now, you merely assert I’m being intellectually dishonest but don’t bother saying what’d be wrong with that on your world-view.
Also, what subjectively annoys you is not a standard.
So, how about you focus on the main issue, the 4 points with which Tom agreed, the 4 which instantly reduced him to claiming that for him it’s all about having subjective fun based on personal preferences du jour.
Ken Ammi
@Cygnus Ustus Are you only able to make assertions or can you elucidate?
For example, what, on your world-view, does it matter if an accidentally existing ape ended up looking like a fool?
Also, you seem to have missed that I made 4 points at the outset, Tom agreed, and it instantly reduced him to claiming that for him it’s all about having subjective fun based on personal preferences du jour.
Ken Ammi
@Dark Friend, this is one of the very, very few (maybe the only) discussions in this comments section that is on point and interesting and for that, I thank you.
On Atheism logical fallacies are not a problem so you don’t have to waste my time attempting to run away from the fact that you committed one. You most certainly committed an argumentum ad populum when you asserted that your subjective personal preferences “align with the majority.”
Now, whether a subjective personal preference is held by one person of the majority still means it’s just a subjective personal preference so imposing it on me is incoherent (not that incoherence matters on Atheism—nor does it matter if I’m wrong about your fallacy).
One way to look at it is that “Athiesm has nothing to do with morality” which is the problem in the first place.
Yet, of course Atheism has to do with morality and ones preferences since it’s a world-view.
But, if “its just the nonbelief in deities” then in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you accept God’s existence?
As for that you don’t bother saying how or why harming peoples’ lives is problematic, on Atheism.
You merely moved the goalpost (even if accidentally and not that it matters on Atheism) by now merely asserting, “most beings [another argumentum ad populum?] like humans, pain and unfairness is something the majority of us hate” so you you don’t bother saying how or why pain and unfairness are problematic, on Atheism nor why what the majority hates is any sort of standard.
Keep in mind that on Atheism pain and hate are the accidental byproducts of accidental bio-organic neural-reactions accidentally determined by the accidental laws of physics and as interpreted by accidentally existing apes within an accidental universe wherein there’s no universal imperative to not cause pain or be unfair—which his why you appeal to the majority in the first place.
As for “good evidence for a God” as you well known, the first step is for you to justify your demand for evidence, on your world-view (and then we can discuss your subjective idea of what is “good” evidence).
If you think that “morality” has “gotten progressively better” you must live a very cloistered life in a modern first world country.
But more importantly, if “morality did evolve,” and so is actually still evolving, then you have disqualified yourself from ever condemning anything since you can’t condemn any past actions (since what’s immoral today could have been moral back then: and visa versa, actually), nor could you really condemn anything today (since for all you know the moral zeitgeist is even now turning into a poltergeist and so what was moral now will be immoral one second later: and visa versa, actually).
But then again, you can’t ever actually condemn anything anyhow since your view is pure subjectivism—which you seek to bypass by appealing to the utter subjectivism of the majority.
Also, you hold to a world-view according to which there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes adhering to accidentally evolved morality in the first place.
Sorry for the verbosity, I will seek to be a lot more succinct next time.
Dark
(MISUNDERSTANDING ADPOP SECTION) if u dont understand a fallacy then look it up, i never commited adpop, because i never said something is right because the majority says so. And morality has nothing to do with atheism and that isint a problem, atheism is purely the nonbelief in deities, it does not count as a world view because its not claiming how the world works or that god doesnt exist, its only saying that someone doesnt currently believe in a god. (PROBLEMATIC FOR ATHEISM RAMBLE U KEEP DOING) i only said evidence of gods existence is problematic for atheism, because that would render atheism unjustifiable and i never said pain is a problem for atheism because as i believe i said before, the nonbelief in god has nothing to do with pain or morality, pain and morality are concerns for beings because alot of us feel pain and want to avoid it and want to be treated fairly, which is why we have a legal system and why we have people that dont want to cause harm to others, no matter if theres a god or not because some people have empathy for others. I as an individual have a moral code and want to avoid pain, because pain and injustice negatively impacts me and the people i care about, which again has nothing to do with my nonbelief in a god, it only has to do with my subjective goals and wants. And for my justification for evidence of god, my justification is my preference for wanting truth, becuase knowledge leads to progress and understanding, which are 2 things i prefer because they help my life. (FOR YOUR MORALITY SECTION) yes i live in a first world country, and i know that some other coutries have it like hell, which is irelevant to my point. And just beause morality has evolved (which i would also argue that the usage of the word “morality” is different between theist (especially abrahamic theist) and athiest because one side says we shouldn’t or should harm others because god says so and the athiest side harms or not harms others because of their individual codes and desires, but for the sake of the team im on, im a secular humanist, which at its most basic level is treating others kindly and fairly because it helps everyone thrive.) But i can still condem past, present, or future actions because they come in conflict with my moral code and ill correct myaelf because i didn’t mean to come off as someone that is a pure subjectivist, for example, if a group of people can agree that their moral code is not to harm eachother, or treat eachother unfairly like (secular humanist), then we can objectively say that some actions are to be condemned because they come in conflict with not harming or not treating eachother unfairly.
Ken Ammi
Friend, I appreciate the detailed interaction but I won’t be able to trade essays with you henceforth (your comment was just under 500 words).
Oh, you “never said something is right because the majority says so” you only said, “my personal preferences align with the majority of every human being on the planet” even when they’re wrong—got it!
Atheism is 100% “claiming how the world works” that’s follows from rejecting God so you are restricted by it to think in terms of an accidental universe, accidental life, etc.
But since you deny it’s a world-view (which means you disagree with Dawkins) in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually accept God’s existence?
That “no matter if theres a god” regarding that “alot of us feel pain and want to avoid it and want to be treated fairly” and “some people have empathy for others” ranges from fallacious to on point, ironically.
See, “if theres a god” then pain is just an accidentally existing ape’s interpretation of accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions that are accidentally determined by the accidental laws of physics. Want to avoid it would merely be an a-ethical subjective personal preference as would be wanting to be treated fairly: don’t you ever incorporate your world-view’s implications into your world-view?
Yet, you nailed it with that only “some” people have empathy for others while on Atheism one might very well conclude that if people seek to avoid pain then they’ll be easy to oppress so as to avoid pain.
You hit the Atheism nail on the head again by continuing to evidence that this is solely about subjective personal preferences (as Tom had to admit) since you write in terms of how it “impacts me and the people i care about” which you also do as a subjective personal preference, “subjective goals and wants” as you rightly put it. But, beware, if I seek to deny your subjective goals and wants well then, that would be my subjective goals and wants and may the fittest win!
Now, another lesson to learn from the implications of you worldview is that since you admit that your justification for evidence of God is your “preference for wanting truth” then, guess what, if my preference is to be unconcerned for your preference than that’s all folks!
Besides, why do you have a preference for an accident? Why prefer supposed progress and alleged understanding in an existence wherein there is no objective progress and understanding—oops, right, because this is not about that, it’s about you emoting your subjective personal preferences like telling me which ice-cream flavor you prefer (which is an utterly impotent exercise).
Your juxtaposition of Secular Humanist vs. Abrahamic theists is a false dichotomy (not that it matters on Atheism) since on that view we shouldn’t harm others because God says so and because we are called to treat others as we want to be treated, because we are to love our neighbor, etc., etc., etc.
Now, since you demand that Atheism isn’t a world-view I’m unsure how you can so confidently speak for all Atheists when you write in terms of “the athiest side…the team” but consistency is not a universal imperative on Atheism.
In any case, on Secular Humanist “is treating others kindly and fairly because it helps everyone thrive” (even though people who actually call themselves “Humanists” tend to support the brutally violent serial murder of millions of beautiful, healthy, innocent, and defenseless human babies for money) as a mere subjective personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions).
Now, the concept of condemning is not like you’re thinking of it: you merely asserting you don’t like something. Thus, since you hold to that “morality has evolved” (past tense? When did it stop?) no, you can’t even say past actions were wrong if those past people were like you and appealed to their subjective “moral code.”
No, you don’t get objectivity via, guess what, an argumentum ad populum, “if a group of people can agree.”
Dark
i disagree with alot of what you said and some of what you said is very ignorant, so if you want to voice chat on some app preferably discord ill be happy to.
jwkivy
“1. On Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental,”
False. I don’t think anything is accidental. Not believing ‘god’ things exist says absolutely nothing about what that person believes about reality. Just that they don’t think a supposed ‘god’ thingy is part of it.
“2. as is our ability to discern it,’
False again since, I don’t think anything is accidental.
“3. there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it,”
False AGAIN. Reality forces me to adhere to reality.
“4. nor to demand/expect others adhere to it.”
Reality ‘demands’ you adhere to reality, not atheists.
“And yet, on Atheism the most important of my personal preferences is still just a subjective personal preference”
Which is just a it is under theism.
“but you don’t bother saying how or why harming peoples’ lives is problematic, on Atheism.”
Because people PREFER not to be harmed. What’s your SUBJECTIVE reason that makes harming people ‘problematic’?
“Atheism is 100% “claiming how the world works”
Obviously false. What a bizarre statement. If anything, it’s claiming how the world DOESN’T work.
“I appreciate the detailed interaction but I won’t be able to trade essays with you henceforth (your comment was just under 500 words).”
Ummmm, you then proceeded to ‘trade’ an essay of over 500 words. Too funny.
Thanks for the laughs. Too bad you couldn’t evidence your imaginary friend exists.
Ken Ammi
It matters not if an accidental ape made “False” statements, on Atheism, right?
Also, you just typed a bunch of assertions (not that, that matters, on Atheism).
“I don’t think anything is accidental” isn’t an elucidation.
“I don’t think anything is accidental” isn’t an elucidation.
How is it that “Reality forces me to adhere to reality”? I thought that all of us live in reality but some of us don’t adhere to it.
“Reality ‘demands’ you adhere to reality, not atheists” see 3. above.
“Which is just a it is under theism” means you agree with me and is a tu quoque and is false and is contradictory since you also asserted “Reality forces me to adhere to reality.”
This time around you don’t bother saying why we ought to adhere to what people subjectively PREFER: especially when you agreed that “on Atheism the most important of my personal preferences is still just a subjective personal preference” thus, they are expressing personal subjective personal preferences and so can you if you don’t adhere to theirs.
Of course “Atheism is 100% “claiming how the world works” since it begins by merely asserting “how the world DOESN’T work” and then fill that gap with subjective personal preferences.
“henceforth” as in after that one.
As for “evidence your imaginary friend exists” well, since I don’t have an imaginary friend then that’s true but, in any case, did you not listen to the discussion: step one is for you to justify your demand for evidence.
Ken Ammi
“Can you counter-argue against Ken’s points? (the bulk of which were agreed to by Tom)?”
“No, I’ll just invent a quote and pretend that Ken said it.”
Interesting comment section strategy…
Alpha. Beta
You’re right, i had meant that to be a hypothetical conversation but it could be interpreted as a quote. My bad
Ken Ammi
Appreciate it, friend. My primary points were: 1. on Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental, 2. as is our ability to discern it, 3. there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, 4. nor to demand/expect that others adhere to it. Tom ended up agreeing with me on each point and admitted that. That’s why he took the fallback position that it all comes down to subjective personal preferences based fun du jour.
Ken Ammi
@Karl Žuvela You’re clearly incapable of counter-arguing and seek to distract form that by being a childish jerk so you discredited yourself.
Ken Ammi
@Tony Noduskie Logic and philosophy 101 is that if an argument or question is faulty there’s no imperative to counter-argue or answer but it must be dissected and corrected or ignored (not that any of that matters on Atheism).
You subjectively refer to my supposed, “complete dishonesty” but unless you’re a mind reader (in which case you’d be a terrible one) then how could you know I was dishonest. Also, you merely imply there’s something wrong with dishonest by don’t bother saying how or why, on Atheism.
Karl Žuvela
I don’t have to and had no intention of making a counter argument. I can and did make an observation of you.
There’s no point even trying to argue with you anyway because you only pretend at first you want to argue a topic then start weasling about. YOU discredited YOURSELF already. Get a life.
Alpha. Beta
I’m having trouble seeing where exactly Tjump agrees with each of those points. If you could provide some quotes or timestamps that would be a big help.
Ken Ammi
Beta Not that it matters, right, if I do or don’t or he did or didn’t.
If you follow our discussion, he only took issue with wanting to swap “accident” with “random” or “change” and then was reduced him to claiming that for him it’s all about having subjective fun based on personal preferences du jour—that’s the whole reason he did that.
Alpha. Beta
“Not that it matters, right, if I do or don’t or he did or didn’t.”
You don’t think it matters if he did or didn’t agree with you? Would you mind if i assume he didn’t agree with you at all then?
Ken Ammi
If you follow our discussion, on his worldview it doesn’t matter: nothing does objectively.
Bert thompson
No, realiry can be determined to exist by the first cause, in this case a quantum state that we know can be both a cause and effect 2. Cogito ergo sum is a fact and I can discern it simply by existing so youre wrong there.
This is human nature. Theres so many types of theism that it seems even theists dont have an imperative to accurately represent what you thing is true.
This is also irrelevant. Whether a person can convince others of truth wouldn’t change under your world view and is actually evidence of atheism.
Ken Ammi
What are you numbering? To what are you referring?
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Modern birds appeared to emerge in a snap of evolutionary time. But new research illuminates the long series of evolutionary changes that made the transformation possible
Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs . Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles . Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur . What is this evidence? Emu We’ll spare you the exhaustive amount of available cladistic studies; those alone would make a large book if compiled. Dr. Jacques Gauthier, during his time as a graduate student of Professor Kevin Padian here at Berkeley, did his dissertation research on this subject, creating the first well accepted, detailed phylogeny of the diapsids . His work provided strong, compelling support for the theory that birds are theropod dinosaurs . If we look back into the history of the issue, it is apparent that many comparative anatomists during the 16th through 19th centuries noticed that birds were very similar to traditional reptiles. In 1860, shortly after the publication of Charles Darwin’s influential work On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection , a quarry worker in Germany spotted an unusual fossil in the limestone of the Solnhofen Formation (late Jurassic period). This fossil turned out to be the famous ‘London specimen’ of Archaeopteryx lithographica . It was a beautiful example of a “transitional form” between two vertebrate groups (traditional reptiles and birds); just what Darwin expected would eventually be found. Archaeopteryx , generally accepted as being the oldest known bird, is an important link between birds and other coelurosaurs that has helped to illuminate the evolutionary history (phylogeny) of the group. It is now widely held to be the ancestor of all living birds; this is a common misconception. In fact, recent expeditions in China, Mongolia, Madagascar, Argentina, and elsewhere may uncover dinosaurs that usurp the “urvogel” status of Archaeopteryx . Many scientists, including Thomas Henry Huxley (a staunch supporter of Darwin), saw incredible similarities between birds and the theropod dinosaurs (especially the coelurosaurs). Others since Huxley also hinted at the striking resemblances. However, birds were still not well accepted as dinosaur descendants — such hypotheses as A. Walker’s “crocodylomorph” ancestor and G. Heilman’s “thecodont” ancestor held sway for most of the 19th and 20th century, or else birds were simply dismissed as originating from some unknown reptile that didn’t matter anyway. That would change. Dr. J.H. Ostrom ‘s 1969 description of Deinonychus antirrhopus and its similarities to Archaeopteryx was the major step: his work since the 1970’s has provided the impetus for a paradigm sh
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
National Geographic
Finally, You Can See Dinosaurs in All Their Feathered Glory
A new exhibit in New York challenges the popular view of dinos as green, scaly beasts and showcases their links to today’s birds.
Scientists don’t even debate it. They use the terms avian and non-avian dinosaurs. It’s background information to their research.
PLOS Biology
Decelerated dinosaur skull evolution with the origin of birds
The evolutionary radiation of birds has produced incredible morphological variation, including a huge range of skull form and function. Investigating how this variation arose with respect to non-avian dinosaurs is key to understanding how birds achieved …
I could pull up endless examples, but you’re not here for that, are you? You’re here to spread ignorance, fundamentalism, and hate, right Dorie Bentjen?
These are your questions, right?
Atheists, have you prepared your anuses for God’s wrath?
So the answers to your question is, “No, they are not. Dinosaur bones are divided into avian and non-avian dinosaurs. I eat dino meat right off the bone frequently; my favorite is a lovely fried chicken place near my home, though I do love me some arroz con pollo. And your question isn’t sincere; just a way for you to spread your ignorance and hate.”
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Friend, what you subjectively find to be absurd and stupid is not a standard.
That “Nephilim…only exist in myths” is a positive affirmation you must prove.
Also, they are only “described as giants” by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebukes.
Carlos Caro
Ok. The dinosaurs were not giants and became birds. Are the Nephilim proto-birds? See above. We’re done.
Now prove the Nephilim exist. And prove they were proto-birds. While you’re at it, prove your mass-murdering baby-drowning god exists. Apply the same standards to yourself.
I’ll wait.
Ken Ammi
I’m afraid you confused the order of things since I’m the one waiting: recall, “That ‘Nephilim…only exist in myths’ is a positive affirmation you must prove.”
Carlos Caro
Nonsense. Russell’s teapot, chungus. You are absolutely terrible at logic.
Here’s another positive affirmation.
“Ken Ammi understands Russell’s teapot and how it applies in this case. He understands burden of proof and that when a person states something like, ‘This is just a myth,’ that is not a transfer to make someone prove a negative. Ken Ammi understands that proving a negative is not possible and the statement, ‘This is just a myth,’ is effectively a null hypothesis about a thing’s existence that has to be overcome.”
Ken Ammi
Do you believe that humans are accidentally existing apes?
If so, what’s your issue with one such accidentally existing ape being (allegedly) terrible at accidental logic?
Simple: you made a positive affirmation, you were called on it to prove it, you can’t. Lesson learned is that if you can’t prove a positive affirmation just don’t make it.
FYI, the statement “proving a negative is not possible” is a claim to have proved a negative.
Also, of course we can prove negatives: no foot exists at the end of my arm—done.
Carlos Caro
You clearly are very bad at logic. You did not recognize Russell’s Teapot. You clearly do not have any knowledge of the background in the field given your rather juvenile attempt to prove that you can prove a negative. You’re not just wrong; you’re “would fail freshman philosophy” wrong.
No, my guy. That’s not how it works. If it did, in theory you could always change whether an affirmation is positive or negative simply by switching a word around. That is clearly false. Watch.
Positive Affirmation: There is an empty can of cola on my desk.
Negative Affirmation?: It is not the case there are no empty cans of cola on my desk.
Logically, the two statements are equivalent. No, you can’t change it from positive to negative through such a simple trick of language.
Also, of course we can prove negatives: no foot exists at the end of my arm—done.
Wrong. You have proven no such thing. All you have proven is you do not perceive a foot at the end of your arm. It’s an invisible and massless foot foot. Prove me wrong.
You surely see what’s coming? It becomes trivially easy to move the goal posts. That’s why the burden of proof rests on the person making the positive claim.
I recommend you actually try looking into Russell’s Teapot and understand this stuff before you pop off in a manner that merely proves your ignorance. I’ll even link it for you. It firmly establishes where burdens of proof fall in critical thinking. If you want the more humorous version, I’ll give you the Dragon in the Garage and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. And if you want the extra credit, try reading about Descartes’ doubts and the Burden of Proof.
You might catch up to a freshman. You make errors that are absolutely laughably bad. Just stop, my guy. You are way out of your depth.
Russell’s teapot – Laurie R. King
www-youtube-com/watch?v=FsN3DCCT…
people-whitman-edu/~herbrawt/cla…
The Burden of Proof
Ken Ammi
You don’t seem to want to apply your worldview’s implications to your worldview—good for you that being consistent isn’t a universal imperative on Atheism.
Now, you say I am “very bad at logic” as a jump to a merely asserted conclusion, without bothering to tell me how an accidentally existing ape ought to be good at accidental logic.
You merely assert I “did not recognize Russell’s Teapot…clearly do not have any knowledge of the background in the field,” etc. which seems to imply you’re actually incapable of counter-arguing.
So, you seem to be saying that you feel free to make negative affirmation without proof.
Speaking of simple trick of language: by definition, according to the law of identify, a foot is the five toed appendage at the end of our legs so running away from that by referring to a foot as “an invisible and massless foot foot” is just a category error—not that it matters on Atheism, nor “to move the goal posts” nor is there any such a thing as a “burden of proof” either “on the person making the positive claim” nor on anyone.
Carlos Caro
Ok. You reject the idea of a burden of proof.
Fine. I am free to claim that Ken Ammi is a brain-dead puppy-eater and am not burdened with a burden of proof. I can even frame it “negatively,” as you are unable to tell the difference between a negative affirmation and simply using the word not.
“It is not the case that Ken Ammi refrains from eating puppies, and it is not the case that Ken Ammi is actually sapient and persists outside of a persistent vegetative space.”
Since burden of proof is not a real thing, I will now claim it and it is now true.
Get away from me, you brain-dead puppy-eater.
Dude…you are laughably bad at this. Seriously.
Kem Ammi
I’m not aware of rejecting the idea of a burden of proof but I do recall that there’s no universal imperative for a burden of proof on your worldview. Thus, either you are the one rejecting the burden of proof or you just have a subjective personal preference for it—like you prefer some ice cream flavors over others.
Now, what, on your worldview, is wrong with an accidentally existing ape being subjectively “laughably bad at this” within an existence wherein there’s no universal imperative for an accidentally existing ape to be good at it?
Carlos Caro
Again, you literally seem to have no idea how burden of proof works. I’ve explained how it works repeatedly and pointed to multiple examples from philosophy already and you with what can only be called amazingly willful hardheadedness refuse to get the idea.
It’s not my worldview, dude. It’s the basics of how we know anything.
Do you think I made a bunch of videos about the burden of proof in philosophy and Russell’s teapot just for you? Do you think I went and published those discussions from philosophy classes at major universities? Or, hang it all, that maybe I just googled one because it’s a famous point in elementary philosophy so I didn’t have to do any work to find it well-explained? This is some basic stuff and you seem to not get it regardless of how often it’s explained. And like the absolute idiot you are, you still think it’s my worldview and not how knowledge works.
I’ve provided the illustrations. I’ve provided multiple academic and non-academic sources backing it up. You have nothing but incoherent babble. Nothing backs you up.
At this point, the evidence for me is conclusive. You are either willingly and willfully stupid or else simply trolling. Goodbye. I cannot make you learn the basics of how thought works. I am not going to waste my time on this.
Ken Ammi
At this point I’ll note that just merely repeating your well-within-the-box-Atheist-group think-talking points-du jour is merely doubling(or quintupling, or at whatever number we are) down on you beginning by jumping to asserted conclusions and continuing to provide evidence (nearing proof now) that you’re literally incapable of, for example, actually arguing for your worldview in order to conclude that I have the burden of proof works.
This isn’t yet about how the BoP works, but about why it’s an issue in the first place, on your worldview.
You’re merely asserting and demanding, I’m just asking why you do so, on your worldview.
See, when you attempt to run away from your worldview and assert, “It’s the basics of how we know anything” you’re coming at this from a worldview according to which there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to know accidental reality in the first place.
Have you really never considered the implications of your worldview and incorporated them into your worldview?
You seem to be saying that I should bear the burden because accidentally existing pages, one named Russell, made videos, published those discussions, etc. said so. Well, you may be impressed by that—to the point of being a childish jerk to anyone who dares to question you—but I’m not.
So, rather than saying I ought because other people also demand that I ought, why not actually find a way to argue your point rather than becoming increasingly emotive?
Likewise, you say “the evidence for me is conclusive” but that’s just a subjective assertion and you began with a conclusion, again, since you don’t bother saying why imply we ought to only base our views on evidence.
And in the end, in typical Atheism 101 fashion, you failed, you were a jerk, and you ran away.
Well, I was, sadly, right as that most recent and last comment of mine, “has been deleted and is only visible to you” and then, “Adding comments disabled” for the whole thread.
It’s very, very common for Atheist on Quora to rely on censorship so they can remain in their safe-spaces.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
That’s a positive affirmation (and a mere assertion) so where is your proof?
Jason Shearin
Magic doesn’t exist. Therefore magic people don’t exist. See how easy that is?
Ken Ammi
But that’s just piling one assertion upon another one. See how easy that is? You can keep finding different ways to say the same thing but that does not change that you now made two positive affirmations (and a mere assertions) without proof.
Jason Shearin
There was no global floor or magic entities.
Ken Ammi
It that because: thus saith Jason? Also, what does it matter, on your worldview, if your positive affirmations without proof, “There was no global floor or magic entities” are true?
Jason Shearin
The entirety of science proves it. It’s not about what I say, it’s about facts
Let’s flip the script. YOU PROVE a global flood using SCIENCE
Ken Ammi
Interestingly, you utterly ignored the key issue, “what does it matter, on your worldview”? Are you still unaware that on your worldview “facts” are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, and that there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them? Why do you constantly run away from your worldview’s implications and throw your worldview under the bus?
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
I found that Bryan Hilliard’s article Lovelock Cave: A Tale of Giants or A Giant Tale of Fiction? is, due to its vague nature, typical of the sort that could go either way: those suffering from what I term Gigorexia Nervosa will yell, “Conspiracy! Cover up!” and the skeptics will yell, “See? Nothing to see here!”—with the apathetic likely saying, “Much ado about nothing, or so it seems.”
I don’t refer to “its vague nature” as a manner whereby to fault Hilliard’s writing but since what we have to go by are some assertions and some artifacts—such is the nature of piecing together history: however ancient of relatively modern.
He notes that the Paiutes Natives “have an oral tradition” that “was written down in 1882 by Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins, daughter of a Paiute Indian chief,” but we know not the timespan between the commencement of the tradition and the recording of it.
The tradition was of “early”—but early as per what timespan is something we’re not told—“white settlers of the area about a race of red-haired, white giants or ‘barbarians’…These ‘giants’ were described,” apparently “described” in 1882 via writing, “as being vicious, unfriendly and cannibalistic.”
So the tale goes, “the Paiutes speak of a great battle that took place which led to their extermination at site known today as Lovelock Cave…The Paiutes demanded their enemy come out of the cave and fight, but the giants refused.” This may be bravado but, let’s go with it.
Perhaps conveniently, “Over time, the entrance to the cave would collapse…cut off from human contact.”
Bryan Hilliard notes, “During the early part of the 20th century, archaeologists found thousands of artifacts inside this cave” and “two miners, James Hart and David Pugh, realized the value of guano as an ingredient of gunpowder, and created a company to start digging it out in 1911.”
The “first archeological dig of Lovelock” was “in 1912…A second dig took place in 1924…a report…was published in 1929” and overall, “Approximately 10,000 archaeological specimens were uncovered” including, “60 average-height mummies” and “a sandal over 15 inches (38 cm).’
Also, “During the initial excavations, there were reports,” by whom and where is not stated, “of mummified remains being found of two red-haired giants. One was a female 6.5-feet (1.98 m) tall and the other a male over 8-feet (2.44 m) tall. However, no such evidence remains.”
Bryan Hilliard notes, “In Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins book, Life Among the Piutes: Their Wrongs and Claims, she does not mention giants, but does refer to so-called barbarians,” the book was published in 1883.
He notes that “radiocarbon dating…found…a human femur dating to 1450 BC, human muscle tissue dating 1420 BC” but such dating methods come with a lot of baggage and problems.
He also notes, “In an article published in the Nevada Review-Miner in 1931, in February and June of that same year, it was reported that two very large skeletons were found in the Humboldt dry lake bed near Lovelock, Nevada. One of the Lovelock skeletons was reported to have measured 8.5-feet (2,59 m) tall…The other was supposedly nearly 10-feet (3.05 m) long,” the phrase, “supposedly nearly” are two qualifying terms back-to-back: it “supposedly” was and was “nearly.”
He adds, “A study done at the University of Nevada indicates the ‘giants’ were about six feet (1.83 m) tall, and not up to 8 feet (2.44 m) tall as had been claimed.”
Also, “Duck decoys found in Lovelock Cave from circa 400 BC to 100 AD” and “basketry,” radiocarbonlly dated, “back to 1218 BC.”
Bryan Hilliard notes, “Skeptics claim that chemical staining by earth after burial was a likely reason why mummified remains have red hair instead of black, like most Indians in the area”—and such phenomena could also affect radiocarbon dating.
He points out, “many of the original artifacts found at Lovelock (but no giants) can be viewed at a small natural history museum located in Winnemucca, Nevada” but considering that the skeletons range from “average-height,” whatever that subjectively was, 6 ft. to “supposedly nearly 10-feet” but “not up to 8 feet” I know not to what, to whom, he’s referring to as “giants.”
Items in the cave (supposedly) date-range from 1450 BC-100 AD but I wonder if we can plug the Norse/Vikings into this picture since they explored North America in circa 1000 AD—who would comfortably be described as White, red-haired giants compared to what we can gather about the average Native size.
I say “I wonder if we can plug” since we have some gaps in which to do so: we have an undated “oral tradition,” Vikings in North America starting in 1000 AD, and a writing of the tradition 1882, which his plenty of time for Vikings—by any other name—to find their way into the lore.
So, there you have it: a little for everyone: from Gigorexia Nervosa sufferers who refer to any absence of evidence as actually existing evidence that was covered up to skeptics who may, for whatever odd reasons, deny that taller than the subjective average people with different than average hair color existed, the apathetic being apathetic—and me playing monkey in the middle: having written on such issues and always seeming to encounter the same vague stuff.
Particularly, see chapters, “Grading the Giant Human Skeleton Chart” and “Giant Skeletons Reported in Old Newspapers Accounts” and “Did the Smithsonian Admit to Destroying Thousands of Giant Human Skeletons in Early 1900’s?,” etc. in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Straight away I have an issue since Garris refers to “giants in the Bible” and the book is titled “Giants: Sons of the Gods” yet, we will have to see if either of them 1) define that vague, generic, subjective, and un-biblical English term, 2) they note that some use “giants” to pseudo-translate both “Nephilim” and also “Rephaim” and that 3) this only leads to confusion since the former are strictly pre-flood hybrids and the latter strictly post-flood humans—and there is no relation between them whatsoever.
We are told that Van Dorn “argues that Genesis 6:1-4 is about spirit beings/angels…” at which point we arrived at my next issue: Angels are not “spirit beings” since they are not “spirit”: and those who do think that they are spirits and/but also mated with human women are forced to invent ideas about how they could do so. Biblically, they are described ontologically as looking like human males, they are as physical as Jesus is post resurrection: physical enough to be touched and eat and yet, able to appear and disappear and pass through walls.
Refreshingly, “Van Dorn lays out the different views of” including something that I have oft argued myself which is that “there is no incontrovertible evidence that everyone in the line of Cain was wicked, nor that everyone in the line of Seth was godly” in fact, there is no evidence of any sort, see my Are there a godly line of Seth and a wicked line of Cain?
“Rather, Van Dorn sees the intermarriage between fallen angels and humans” which is the traditional, original and majority view amongst the earliest Jews and Christians alike as I prove in my book “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?” and subtitled, “A survey of early Jewish and Christian commentaries including notes on giants and the Nephilim.”
Garris has a subsection titled “Post-Flood Giants” so we will have to see if we get technical about that term.
He writes that Van Dorn focuses “on giants after the flood. God sent the flood to wipe out the giants and the violence they caused” however, “giants after the flood” refers to Rephaim and if, or since, “God sent the flood to wipe out the giants and the violence they caused” then any concept of post-flood Nephilim, including a return of them, implies a successful thwarting of God’s will and purpose.
We are told that “The first giant after the flood was Nimrod, ‘a mighty hunter’ (Genesis 10:9). The Hebrew for ‘mighty’ is gibbor (גִבֹּֽר), but the LXX translates this as ‘giant’ (Greek γίγας, gigas). (The LXX also translates gibbor in Genesis 6:4 as ‘giants.’)”
Do you see what the problems are? We have not been given a definition of “giant” but the word keep being employed so we know not to what is being referred: Nephilim, Rephaim, people who are on inch taller than average or one foot of various entire body lengths or what?
The reason why Nirmod is said to be “a mighty hunter” is that he is only referred to as that: being mighty and nothing is said or implied about his height nor is he a Repha.
We are old that the LXX employs “gigas” but we have the same problem as with “giants”: what does gigas mean? We are not told. Well, it (and/or gigantes) literally and merely means “earth-born.”
Garris tells us that “The Hebrew gibbor can refer to a giant, but it is also used for non-giants” but again, we know not of what he speaks nor when he states, “We therefore cannot conclude with certainty that Nimrod was a giant or had anything to do with the Nephilim” although we can most assuredly know that he had nothing to do with the Nephilim. Indeed, gibbor is employed of Nephilim, of David’s soldiers, of God, etc.
Thus, regardless of the term in Hebrew or Greek, context always determines meaning and the context is that Nimrod is not Nephilim and we are told nothing of his size.
We are also told that “Van Dorn also thinks that some of the people Abraham fought against in Genesis 14 were giants” but again, what does that mean? They fought against Repahim and that is all. He quotes Van Dorn thusly, “there is no question that the six tribes defeated by Chedorlaomer before turning to the rebel vassals of Sodom and Gomorrah were giants” but, again and again, what does that mean?
Garris asks “Where did post-flood giants come from?” and tells us that “Van Dorn thinks…either ‘genetic manipulation’ was taking place after the flood or another group of the sons of God took wives just like before the flood” and Garris “prefer the latter explanation” which is not only unbiblical, as those are made up tall tales, but it runs into the issue of thwarting God.
Garris refers to how “When the Israelite spies searched out the land of Canaan, they reported that the people were tall Nephilim—‘the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim’ (Numbers 13:33)” and that “Van Dorn admits it is possible the spies were exaggerating their account, but he counters with Moses’ words about these people to show it would be minimal exaggeration” since “Moses said in Deuteronomy 9:1-2 that Israel would cross the Jordan to ‘dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, cities great and fortified up to heaven, a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know, and of whom you have heard it said, ‘Who can stand before the sons of Anak?’”
Note that in the Moses’ words, he states nothing of Nephilim and includes some exaggeration of his own as the “cities great and fortified up to heaven” wow, those are some walls!!! Plus, the people are merely “tall” which is another vague, generic and subjective term (note that Hebrew males of those days averaged 5.5 ft.).
Numbers 13:33 was stated by 1) unfaithful/disloyal spies who 2) were said to present an evil/bad report 3) for which they were rebuked, 4) wherein they made three claims about which the whole rest of the Bible knows nothing, 5) who contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua and God, 6) and who after supposedly seeing beings who made them look like grasshoppers in comparison, get back to camp and the first thing they say is, “Hey, check out these grapes!”
We are told “Van Dorn highlights Og of Bashan, whose bed was over 13 feet 6 inches (Deuteronomy 3:11)” but we are not told how he comes to such a conclusion as the cited text tells us the size of his bed but nothing of his own height.
I was pleased to see that Van Dorn “provides a good discussion of the textual issues over Goliath’s height” as I often note as much “as the Septuagint has a much lower height of 6’9” compared to the Hebrew of 9’9”.”
Note that to men who average 5.5 ft., even a 6.9 ft. skilled, experienced and trained warrior would have been very intimidating.
Garris then makes quite an odd statement in that Van Dorn “leaves out an important connection between Goliath and the serpent. Van Dorn makes no mention of Goliath’s ‘scale armor’ (1 Samuel 17:5). (The ESV translates this as ‘coat of mail,’ and chain mail would resemble scales.) This connection would have fit nicely with his interpretation of Genesis 3:15 that the giants were ‘biological’ offspring of the serpent…there is a definite connection between Goliath and the serpent. The giants are doing the work of the devil and were to be destroyed by God’s people.”
Actually, there is no biblical way to claim that Goliath, or Rephaim or even Nephilim “were ‘biological’ offspring of the serpent” unless you make a very circuitous argument about how Satan/serpent cast the fallen Angels to Earth and so through their biology, not his own, Nephilim are his biological offspring: it just does not seem to work no matter what.
But note that Garris is referring to Goliath, the Repha, as one of the “giants” who was “doing the work of the devil and were to be destroyed by God’s people”: well, that may very well be but keep in mind that Nephilim are a whole different issue (even if they too were “doing the work of the devil” even though they were not “destroyed by God’s people”).
Ironically, Garris notes that when it comes to demons, Van Dorn “makes a lot of leaps based on word associations” which is exactly what I have been saying about the both of them (English word associations which are Hebrew disassociations).
Van Dorn thinks that demons are “the spirits of giants” which is a popular view but is un-biblical (even if not anti-biblical) but is really just apocryphal speculation base on 1 Enoch aka Ethiopic Enoch. I make a multi-page argument that demons are the spirits of fallen Angels in my book “What Does the Bible Say About Demons? A Styled Demonology”—even though “Van Dorn says it is a common misconception that demons are fallen angels” ;o)
Now, for his view “He appeals to Job 26:5, which speaks of the Rephaim (which the LXX translates as ‘giants’) as dwelling ‘under the waters.’ Van Dorn argues this is tied with Sheol, the OT place of the dead, referenced in the following verse. He also appeals to other passages suggesting the spirits of the giant Rephaim dwell in Sheol (Psalm 88:10-11; Proverbs 2:18-19; 9:18; 21:6; Isaiah 14:9).” I am empathetic but view the linguistically/grammatically complex term Rephaim are deriving from symbolism and then being applies to non-Hebrew people groups—I have a whole chapter on Rephaim in my book “What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.”
Garris tells us that in Van Dorn’s view “giants are active in the NT [New Testament], but they are defeated by Christ after His death on the cross” well, I must have missed that—he must mean that since demons are the spirits of whatever “giants” are then any reference to demons is a reference to “giants”—for what it is worth.
And Garris leaves off with that Van Dorn’s book “is well worth reading. For all its flaws…” which include that he “takes his case for giants too far…prefers the Septuagint translation over the Hebrew text, and he references lots of extra-biblical material, including Jewish beliefs and possible connections of person/place names…injects speculation amidst sound biblical arguments.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
This volume follows upon Noah’s Flood, the Deluge, Global or Local?, Vol I: A Historical Survey of Views from BC to AD.
You can find them on Amazon—here—or other book sellers.
The scope of this work is quite simple as it is merely a styled survey of who, which commentator/interpreter, took which view of Noah’s flood, the deluge: local or global?
Thus, the survey consists of authors who were selected on the criteria of whether they related, retold, commented or interpreted the flood/deluge and not selectively based on which view they took.
Thus, the only bias within this work is that I elucidate my own view whilst leaving theirs to be their own, spoken of by and for themselves.
These commentaries actually range from strict interpretative commentary to sermonizing homilies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
For starters: no, the title is not the set up for a punchline. If anything, it is a cryptic reference that I will elucidate at the conclusion.
I was once asked words to the affect of why I have focused on that which I term Systematic Biblical Paranormology by someone who was about to present a teaching on the tabernacle used during the exodus from Egypt.
I asked what topped the Ark of the Covenant. Now, most people would reply, “Two Angels.” Yet, that was not the case. Rather, it was topped with two Cherubim.
Now, based solely on traditions, some would wrongly reply that Cherubim are a kind of Angel. Yet, that is simply not the case. In fact, that is a category error that violates the law of identity. But, since that is not my current context, I will direct the interested readers to my books What Does the Bible Say About Angles? A Styled Angelology and What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology.
The contextual point is that you can throw out 99% of all depictions of the Ark since they have it topped by human looking beings with two wings each. Yet, Cherubim feature four faces, four wings, hoof-like feet, etc. (see Ezekiel chaps. 1 and 10).
Cherubim were positioned at two sides of the mercy seat, across from each other (Exodus 25:20).
After Jesus’ resurrection, two Angels were found in the tomb, “sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet” (John 20:11-12).
Scholarly theological literature characterizes Cherubim as throne guardians (although simply guardians seems more fitting since they also guarded the way into the Garden of Eden, post-fall).
Angels are, as their title, their job title, denotes, messengers.
Cherubim could be said to be featured there due to guarding the way to God, allowing before Him those on whom He had mercy. As per the cited Ezekiel texts, it would seem that the Ark is an Earthly representation of the heavenly tabernacle/temple and/or God’s movable throne.
Correlating the placement of the Cherubim at the head and feet of the mercy seat, metaphorically speaking, with the placement of the Angels in the tomb—and applying a mirdashic application—we can read into this that that the Cherubim once guarded access to God and then Angels brought the message—the good news the evangel—that the way was now accessible via the one way, Jesus.
Back to the tile, “Two Angles Walk Into a” with, “Bar” actually referring to the Aramaic word for son (whence comes the term Bar Mitzvah: son of the commandments) in this case, not just a bar but The Bar, God the Son, Jesus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
I mean, why believe in something to exist if it has never been proven to have existed to begin with?
Religion has been in existence for thousands of years and up until now there’s no evidence of such deity. THOUSANDS OF YEARS. We can’t keep waiting (and hoping) that it’s true.
I, True Freethinker, replied
Contextualizing your comment: on Atheism there’s literally nothing wrong with believing in something to exist if it has never been proven to have existed to begin with.
Moreover, the very first step is for the Atheist to justify demanding proof (not evidence?) on their worldview.
Those are two things with which to deal before getting to your mere assertion that, “there’s no evidence of such deity.”
Fred Bert
THOUSANDS OF YEARS WITHOUT PROOF OR EVIDENCE (if you base it on religion). People can semantics their way out of it but the fact remains that it has never been proven. Plain and simple.
True Freethinker
Well friend, you clearly tapped out having run out of the Atheism 101 stuff you likely typically copy and paste from other Atheists.
I noted, “the very first step is for the Atheist to justify demanding proof (not evidence?) on their worldview. Those are two things with which to deal before getting to your mere assertion that, ‘there’s no evidence of such deity.'”
Since you’re literally incapable of dealing with that, unable to take the very first step (because your worldview is a collapsed failure) you ignore critical systematic thinking and merely double down on the mere assertion, “THOUSANDS OF YEARS WITHOUT PROOF OR EVIDENCE.” Now, the point is that since you’ve no justification for demanding proof or evidence, you’ve no justification for demanding it then the (alleged) lack of it is a non-issue and you can no longer complain about it.
Well, maybe Fred got the message since he no longer replied.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
