• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Does God Hate Figs?

zyzygy said:
Theology is stories and opinions about imaginary beings.
Click to expand...

That sums it up. It's all over the map. You can't keep track of all the make believe stuff that gets churned out with the pretension of intellectual scholarship. Might as well study sprites and fairies and their various powers and characteristics.
 
"very naughty figs"?

:lamo
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Huh. Odd that you'd have to pretend to yourself that I've done something like that. Comes across as a self-defense mechanism on your part when you can't rationally address a point.

Since you don't even understand what Pascal's Wager is, why are you trying to address it?

It's based on a false dilemma/dichotomy fallacy, so I can understand how that might confuse you right off the bat.
A. There are all manner of gods that are believed in around the world by their respective adherents.
B. There exists, then, the chance that picking the wrong god will result in potential punishment.
C. Hence, Pascal's 50/50 scenario is shown to be nonsense.

Yet again, you're in completely over your head.

Gooney goo-goo.
Click to expand...
You confuse objections with debunking. And as many objections as have been made there are defenses. It's still part of the ongoing philosophical conversation. Your YouTube understanding of the Wager is deficient.
Learn:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

But props on not reverting to form. You can do that now.

Namaste
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
You confuse objections with debunking. And as many objections as have been made there are defenses. It's still part of the ongoing philosophical conversation. Your YouTube understanding of the Wager is deficient.
Learn:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

But props on not reverting to form. You can do that now.

Namaste
Click to expand...

Lulz. It's based on logical fallacies, and your link doesn't rebut that. The objections, in this case, are the debunking.

Interesting, nevertheless, that you prove incapable of actually making a case and have to simply link to something you don't understand that doesn't support your position.

You seem obsessed with holding forth on topics that are waaaay past you intellectually and then, as a self-defense mechanism, try and impugn the intellect of others to distract from the fact that it's yours that isn't up to the task.

Meh, 'twas ever thus.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Lulz. It's based on logical fallacies, and your link doesn't rebut that. The objections, in this case, are the debunking.

Interesting, nevertheless, that you prove incapable of actually making a case and have to simply link to something you don't understand that doesn't support your position.

You seem obsessed with holding forth on topics that are waaaay past you intellectually and then, as a self-defense mechanism, try and impugn the intellect of others to distract from the fact that it's yours that isn't up to the task.

Meh, 'twas ever thus.
Click to expand...
What case am I supposed to make? I post a lighthearted reply to someone who called belief in God a Sucker's Bet. You come thundering in with your debunking claim. I refer you to a philosophy link that shows that Pascal's Wager has not been debunked. My case is made.
 
Angel said:
What case am I supposed to make? I post a lighthearted reply to someone who called belief in God a Sucker's Bet. You come thundering in with your debunking claim. I refer you to a philosophy link that shows that Pascal's Wager has not been debunked. My case is made.
Click to expand...

No, I simply addressed the fact that Pascal's wager has been debunked, I demonstrated exactly how, and your link didn't show that it hasn't been.

Yet again you have to lie to try and make a point.

That being the case, you should consider the validity of the point itself and be less emotional devastated when your claim has been show to be nonsense.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, I simply addressed the fact that Pascal's wager has been debunked, I demonstrated exactly how, and your link didn't show that it hasn't been.

Yet again you have to lie to try and make a point.

That being the case, you should consider the validity of the point itself and be less emotional devastated when your claim has been show to be nonsense.
Click to expand...
The only thing you've shown is that you don't understand how philosophy works. And the only emotion your lack of understanding and its concomitant unwillingness to understand evokes in me is amusement. Have a nice day, T.
 
Angel said:
The only thing you've shown is that you don't understand how philosophy works. And the only emotion your lack of understanding and its concomitant unwillingness to understand evokes in me is amusement. Have a nice day, T.
Click to expand...

It's OK that you were not only compelled to lie, but that you have no idea what Pascal's Wager is nor why/how it's been so thoroughly debunked and proven to be invalid.

It's always good for a laugh to see you struggle with such simple concepts.

Gooney goo-goo.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
It's OK that you were not only compelled to lie, but that you have no idea what Pascal's Wager is nor why/how it's been so thoroughly debunked and proven to be invalid.

It's always good for a laugh to see you struggle with such simple concepts.

Gooney goo-goo.
Click to expand...
You're the liar, my friend, and the really strange thing is, I think you know you're the liar. The compulsion to call others liars so evident in your posts (and not only your posts ostensibly in reply to my posts) points to an interesting psychology should you ever become interested in self-knowledge.

Namaste
 
late said:
There are a bunch of different types of figs in the ME. They played a significant role in the diet back then, because it's a somewhat hostile environment.

So they needed figs, but they also needed to vent about the fickleness of agriculture. Now we'd blame the weather.
Click to expand...

I agree, and would add that there are numerous times throughout the OT that the ancient Hebrews excoriate natural things just because they represent something threatening.

To us, the sea is just a big body of water. One online source claimed "For the Jews, the oceans or seas were symbolic of death. They were not a seafaring people at all, and they saw the sea as an enemy or as representative of death."
 
Angel said:
You're the liar, my friend, and the really strange thing is, I think you know you're the liar. The compulsion to call others liars so evident in your posts (and not only your posts ostensibly in reply to my posts) points to an interesting psychology should you ever become interested in self-knowledge.

Namaste
Click to expand...

I understand that you have to pretend that to yourself to protect yourself from the pain of facing the very real fact that Pascal's Wager has been debunked. That, and you had to lie about me lying in order to distract from the fact that you lied and got called on it.

If you don't like it, stop lying about the posts of others. Most simple, really, but you seem to struggle with that concept.

Gooney goo-goo.
 
Ouroboros said:
I agree, and would add that there are numerous times throughout the OT that the ancient Hebrews excoriate natural things just because they represent something threatening.

To us, the sea is just a big body of water. One online source claimed "For the Jews, the oceans or seas were symbolic of death. They were not a seafaring people at all, and they saw the sea as an enemy or as representative of death."
Click to expand...

An article in the 1991 edition of the Epigraphic Society Occasional Publications (ESOP) entitled “The Davenport and Newark Inscriptions,” by Charles Moyer asserted that certain ancient North American artifacts and inscriptions could not be Hebrew because “the ancient Hebrews feared and hated the sea and have never shown any evidence of being a sea-faring people…” I do not believe that assertion can be substantiated, and the word “never” particularly misstates the historical reality of the ancient Hebrews. This article will document that the ancient Hebrews (i.e. “Israelites”) had well-developed sea-faring skills. It will also show why historians have failed to recognize this fact.

https://stevenmcollins.com/articles/did-israel-fear-the-sea/


Here the late Raphael Patai (1910-1996) recreates the fascinating world of Jewish seafaring from Noah's voyage through the Diaspora of late antiquity. In a work of pioneering scholarship, Patai weaves together Biblical stories, Talmudic lore, and Midrash literature to bring alive the world of these ancient mariners. As he did in his highly acclaimed book The Jewish Alchemists, Patai explores a subject that has never before been investigated by scholars. Based on nearly sixty years of research, beginning with study he undertook for his doctoral dissertation, The Children of Noah is literally Patai's first book and his last. It is a work of unsurpassed scholarship, but it is accessible to general readers as well as scholars.

An abundance of evidence demonstrates the importance of the sea in the lives of Jews throughout early recorded history. Jews built ships, sailed them, fought wars in them, battled storms in them, and lost their lives to the sea. Patai begins with the story of the deluge that is found in Genesis and profiles Noah, the father of all shipbuilders and seafarers. The sea, according to Patai's interpretation, can be seen as an image of the manifestation of God's power, and he reflects on its role in legends and tales of early times. The practical importance of the sea also led to the development of practical institutions, and Patai shows how Jewish seafaring had its own culture and how it influenced the cultures of Mediterranean life as well. Of course, Jewish sailors were subject to the same rabbinical laws as Jews who never set sail, and Patai describes how they went to extreme lengths to remain in adherence, even getting special emendations of laws to allow them to tie knots and adjust rigging on the Sabbath.

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/6277.html
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I understand that you have to pretend that to yourself to protect yourself from the pain of facing the very real fact that Pascal's Wager has been debunked. That, and you had to lie about me lying in order to distract from the fact that you lied and got called on it.

If you don't like it, stop lying about the posts of others. Most simple, really, but you seem to struggle with that concept.

Gooney goo-goo.
Click to expand...
Plus, the Last Word Syndrome. Go on,have at it. Our exchange is a matter of record.
 
Zyzygy,
I don't have that big a dog in the fight re: ancient Hebrews' seafaring skills. I can believe that history-- including the histories promulgated by many persons of Jewish faith-- may have overlooked that aspect of Hebrew life, for whatever reasons. The only reason I bring up the allegation of "sea-hostility" was to illustrate that ancient peoples sometimes formed poetic resentments toward natural phenomena, for reasons we moderns will never fully understand.

"But the wicked are like the tossing sea, which cannot rest, whose waves cast up mire and mud."- EZEKIEL 57:20.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom