Re: Science, God, and Free Will

On Nov 23, 5:23 am, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 22 Nov, 21:18, part...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
<snip>



(The point was brought to demonstrate the impossibility to rely on
'historical' sources, as they are never objective, and are written to
present one specific viewpoint. The increditibility of the Assyrian
version was just a sidenote).

True, if that was the only reason to believe in a supernatural
entity. As there are more serious reasons, the Bible's version adds no
new assumptions.

But you can't say that a claim of supernatural intervention in the
Bible is evidence that superatural events happened in the past as
described by the Bible.
That would be circular reasoning.

Again, the Bible's authenticy is hard to doubt, because of the
Kuzari Principle (KP) and other reasons (see below). That's the base
of the argument - not the mere description of such events in the
Bible.

Maybe the Jews really paid a tribute to end the siege, maybe the siege
failed because the Assyrians run out of resources or the army and the
king were needed somewhere else (a king can't stay too long away from
his trone before somebody tries to grab it). These are common events
in history and don't need any supernatural explanation.

So both are liers?

Maybe.

highly unlikely.

Why?

Because of the next paragraph. The Bible dones't apparently have an
reason to lie, or conceal these details, were they true.


Also note, that the Bible has no
problem of telling us of bribes paid by Jewish kings, or sieges
abandoned for other, natural, reasons.

I'm not a Bible scholar, but I think that in most descriptions of
warfare there is a supernatural element in the Bible.

I'm not a scholar, too, but a quick reading yielded opposite
results. The three wars in Numbers have no supernatural elements, nor
do 2 out of 4 in Joshua. Only 1 in Judges seems so, and I can't find
any in Samuel. Only 2 or 3 in Kings (the Assyrian one included). Sure,
God sometimes tells in advance what the outcome will be, and sometimes
guides the Jews how to fight, but no description on actual divine
interference are given.

They should have had a very
serious reason to invent the angel story.

Like supporting the belif that their God helped them?

Again, this motive exists in any other Biblical war. Yet most of
them don't have angles (maybe even all of them - someone should check.
But I don't recall any right now. There's a promise that an angle will
help the Jews to conquer Canaan, but no description of actual angelish
intervention).

And, really, Sennacherib has
some explanations to make for the disappearance of his army, and the
end of his conquests.

How do you know that his army disappeared?

He doesn't mention it any more, nor is it mentioned in any other
place, and he did stop his conquests.

Something must apparently have happened to his
army - what would have prevented the Bible from telling the truth? I
don't think that such angel's intervention appears in any other place
in Kings.

Angel and God interventions in military disputes appear in lots of
other places in the Bible, though.
The Bible is not parsimonious about divine interventions, in fact,
they happen continously in it.

Divine intervention in a war instead, has never been observed.


Tradition 'proves' lots of contraddictory claims which are not
consistent with evidence.

In these posts, when I say 'tradition', I mean 'reliable tradition',
in a way to be defined below (the Kuzari mentions that Indian
tradition (of his time, at least), isn't reliable, and defines the
term). Such traditions don't prove contradictory claims, as far as I
know, nor are they in contradiction with evidence.

We consider not only the rulers' intentions, but also the
population's. Anyway the chances of surviving such a series of such
events is negligible.

It isn't.
In the Middle-Ages the Jews were present on a very large area
consisting of the whole Europe, part of Asia and part of Africa.
That large area had no political unity, it was divided in hundreds of
countries often at war with each other.
Many of that countries at some points of their history killed or
expelled their Jews.
Obviously when some countries were persecuting Jews, Jews were
surviving somewhere else, and then were re-inhabitating the region
perhaps centuries later, when the government was completely different
(medieval countries usually didn't last politically for more than a
few centuries).

That's no more than a (true) description of how actually things
happened.

I see nothing unlikely or supernatural about that.

If it isn't unlikely, then why didn't it happen to any other nation/
culture? every exiled nation eventually merged into the local culture.
Even if no one tried to destroy it, locally or not. Again, what do you
think are the chances of surviving in hostile local cultures, and also
surviving these series of destruction attempts? that Jews came back to
every place is the fascinating fact - they should have merged into
local culture, and not return (as Jews) to places they were destroyed
in. Such a single event is not surprising, maybe. A series of such is
unlikely - again, it happened to no one else.

Anyway this point has long deprted from my initial intention. If we
want to talk of proving the Bible, the easily-refutable tests seem a
better proof (you saw that post, didn't you? it was my last response
to Robert. Sorry, but I still didn't find how to link to posts...).

That
they didn't succeed is amazing - Jewish cultured returned to every
such place.

What probability would you give that? I think that the one
who prophecied it, was either extremely stupid to declare that it'll
happen this way, or alternatively - he just knew what he speak on. A
pre-declared negligible probability event is a proof, don't you think?

I don't see anything improbable about it, since there was only a
single attempt at the complete destruction of their culture (the Nazi
one).
Many uncoordinated local expulsions or killings werent' unlikely to
completely destroy them.

Yet every other culture of this time (and many later ones) was
indeed destroyed.

Many cultures are indeed older than the 1st century.
Some are also older than the Jews.
Indians, for instance.

Again, these cultures didn't survive a long history in a hostile
environment, without political independence, and survived so many
(local) destruction attempts.

Moreover, consider the notion of self-fullfilling prophecy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fullfilling_prophecy
The mere existence of the prophecy might have contributed to the
Jewish sense of unity and migh have helped them to keep the their
identity.

When stuck into a church, having two options (Christian baptism or
death), or given these options by crusaders, I can hardly see how
knowledge of the prophecy might have helped. How can it help them
escape a Pogrom? It can theoretically lead them to spread their
culture in any possible place, but I know of no actual event in which
Jews did it in this intention. Do you? And, sense of unity comes from
a common culture, even without such a prophecy. It doesn't add to it.

The prophecy might have added motivation not to lose the Jewish
identity.

Which would mean to get killed, and not baptised to Christianity?
that doesn't make them a surviving culture...

And it didn't help any other culture....

There are cultures older than the Jewish one, I don't know if they
have a similar prophecy.

Again, you say that sense of unity would keep a nation in exile.
Presumably all the nations of the ancient world had such a unity,
along with a distinct culture and religion. When exiled, it didn't
help them.

This is called Appeal to Tradition and more specifically Kuzari
Principle and it's a fallacy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_traditionhttp://en.wikipedia.o...

Bingo! I did mean the Kuzari principle. I had no idea it has a name,
and appears on wikipedia.... nice to see it there. Anyway the apply to
tradition doesn't seem very connected (I don't argue something is good
- I argue it's true).

If you read the article you might notice that it's highly criticized

I also noted that it answers the criticism.... unless you believe in
aliens, that is.... (but the Razor argues against it, anyway).

.http://www.talkreason.com/articles/kuzari.cfmIs a rather long article
that dissects it, for instance.

And a pretty foolish one. I didn't bother to read it to its end.
I'll tell you some of the reasons I think it's stupid, and tell me
what you think.

First, he understand the KF wrongly, as claiming that "momentous"
must be completely preserved by tradition. Then he proves that the
Kuzari itself doesn't think so, and concludes that the KF might be a
nice argument, but isn't related to the Kuzari book. Then he gives the
answer, that KF doesn't claim that - it claims that such events might
be forgotten, but can never be invented. So the KF doesn't contradict
the Kuzari, and its roots can indeed be found there (although Yust
probably isn't aware of that - it's connected to my "obligation" point
below, mentioned by the Kuzari and known by Gottlieb). Yet, Yust
continues to hold his former opinion, that the KF isn't really
Halevi's. In my opinion, it's a bold misunderstanding of the KF (one
reason I can think of, is Yust's mathematical approach. I'll return to
that later).

Second, Yust really quotes the Kuzari, asking the Rabbi why doesn't
the KP force his to accept the Indian tradition. The Rabbi answers,
(quote) "My belief would be undermined if this information came from a
distinctly defined religion or a book that is commonly agreed to
contain no chronological distortions. But it is not the case with
India." (1:61) In other words, the Hindus possess no qualitative
tradition! (end quote). So Yust acknowledges that the Jewish tradition
is essencially different from any other one (the Indian is only an
example), in that the Jewish one is reliable, and the Indian isn't. It
isn't an essencial point about the Jews - they just happen to hold a
reliable tradition (the written Bible ensures that the tradition is
passed unaltered down the generations). In principle, any other people
could hold such a tradition, but it simply didn't happen (that's why
"momentous" events were indeed forgotten - and I'm sure that Gottlieb
is perfectly aware of that). A few paragraphs later, Yust seems to
forget that, and he argues, that since the KP must apply to any
tradition (and not only the Jews'), then showing that many traditions
aren't reliable refutes the KP.... that's more than stupid. Bringing
Halevi's answer, forgetting it, and then bringing the examples the
Kuzari gave the Rabbi.... really, I could expect more of a
mathematician (that's what Yust seems to be. I may be wrong here).
It's more than obvious that the tradition about Mt. Vesuvius is even
weaker that the Kuzari's Indians', and the Christ's ecclipse doesn't
even claim to be "momentous" in the sense of the Indian legends (how
many have witnessed it??!!?).

Third, well, that's really weird, even if we speak of a stupid
author. The KP isn't a mathematical (or even logical) argument -
logically, it IS possible for all the people in certain generation to
invent a myth, and decide to pass it on reliably. That's not a
mathematic or logic contradiction. However, Halevi, familiar with
humane nature, notes that these things just don't happen, and are
virtually impossible, considering that we speak of humans (even
without the "obligations" point, see below). However, Yust tries to
formalize the KP mathematically, and is then surprised to discover
that it isn't mathematically provable.... really. The KP's very terms
can't be translated into math correctly (I think). The KF psuedo-
mathematic language may have mislead him, but I'd expect more of
someone who knows something about math. That may be a reason for his
misunderstanding of the KF - that he tried to understand it as a math
argument. And anyway his application of induction is really stupid -
induction assumes a discrete set, and the tradition's nature is analog
and continouos. That's the ideal way to transmit a reliable tradition
(for some reason, Yust assumes the opposite. He thinks that ideal
transmission should be discrete, with a discrete definition of
generations. Now that's double stupidity - first assuming that, and
then applying the induction, after he notes that his idealised
assumption doesn't hold. And the most stupid is assuming that Halevi
didn't notice that generations are discrete, while Halevi itself notes
the opposite (I think I saw a reference to chapter 4 of the book on
that)).

Fourth, he says that the Jewish tradition was indeed forgotten and
restored. This point also appears in Wikipedia's page. I think that
careful reading of Kings B 22 yields the opposite. A book was indded
found. Does it mean that its contents was unknown until then? the
Bible doesn't hint so. Indeed, people were excited about finding it,
but it doesn't mean that the tradition was forgotten. The most logical
thing is to assume that they found the book that Moses wrote himself
(it was found in the Temple, and Moses has put it there - Deuteronomy
31:26), and were excited because it's a clear sign from God that they
should start doing what's written in it (clearly, for many centuries
the Jews didn't exactly keep all the Bible's commandments. That
doesn't mean they were forgotten - the Bible is very clear about
that). And of course, that very chapter implies that the tradition
couldn't possibly have been forgotten, because on those very days
there was a prophet in Jerusalem. Even if you think that someone can
become a prophet without perfectly obeying the Bible (which is
impossible if it is forgotten), you can't assume that the prophet
didn't remind the people of the Bible and order them to keep it. That
was the main duty of the prophets, as evident throughout the Bible.


And it's very childish in my opinion: it's effectively claiming that
you belive because your parents told you so.

Yeah. That's the reason you believe your name is what it is, and
that your grandparents immigrated to America from Spain (or whatever),
etc. etc. But it's even stronger. See below.

My name is what it is because my parents have decided it, there is no
way they could have lied about it.

Your last name.

And for what concerns my ancestry, I rather belive my parents since
they give me a plausible story. If they told be that they came from
Mars, I wouldn't belive them, at lest not without evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It's an extraordinary claim only for a Materialist. If indeed we
conclude that God must exist (and I think most Idealists did, for
example, as well as many Dualists), and examine the extraordinary
wisdom contained in the universe, and conclude that it couldn't have
been created by chance, concluding that God had some intention in
creating it (intelligent being don't do useless things), noting that
humans are the most intelligent life forms, and concluding that the
creation's aim has to do with humans, noting that we can't guess it
alone, we can conclude that God should reveal His intentions to us.
Then, the Sinai Revealation isn't an extraordinary claim.

This point can be long discussed, and I disn't mean to open a new
discussion about it. I only say that the claim isn't necessarilt
extraordinary. And even if it is, the KP stands for the extraordinary
evidence you require. And it's needed anyway, even if the point isn't
extraordinary, because of the "obligations" point below.

If I say that I own a white cat you will probably belive me, If I say
that I own a white unicorn you wouldn't belive me, at least not until
I presented some good evidence.

What if your parents lied you, or were forced to accept a belif (what
does the Bible says about the appropriate treatment for those who
reject the religious authority?), or were simply ignorant of their
history and trusted what the priest said?

Parents don't lie on such things

How do you know?

Because of the paragraph below... I meant it to be read after the
post is refers to. Okay, I'll just post it below.

- again (as was mentioned in that
reply to Robert), the tradition obligates one to live very
uncomfortable life, and even agree to get killed if someone tires to
force one to abandon it.

But the tradition could be a lie itself, in the sense that a group of
people somehow decided to set their tradition to some belif at some
point.

A large number of people can't agree on an exact version. That's not
logically impossible, but humane nature forces that. And anyway, they
don't make thier childs' lives harder without a good reason (the
"obligation", again. Below).

No reason the parents will give their
children such an heritage, without a VERY good reason. Lying isn't an
option.

The good reason was that their priests told them so, or they were
forced to do so, or they were just liers.
It's childish to assume that one's parents are infallible.

Priests telling them is referred to below. Forced tradition was
referred to in the last post (true faith can never emerge this way).
Lying in such cases is, again, against humane nature
("obligation"...).

when forced to accept a belief, one abandons it as soon as one can,
and never makes one's children (or oneself) die for it... See all the
Jews that were forced to accept Christianity (e.g. Spain 1492) - they
were never loyal Christians, and returned to Judaim as fast as
possible. That's why the Inquisition was so busy. Such an obligating
heritage can't be forced. And never on masses.

So how did Christianity and Islam (and probably many other) religions
spread?

First, you forget that both of them are based on the Bible, and can
use the KP, so people realize the truth in them. In fact, both
wikipedia and Yust refer to the KP as a Jewish principle, and I don't
know why. It's a Bible proof, which is good to any other Biblical
religion, too.

Also, Christianity and Islam aren't too difficult religions. People
had no real reason not to accept them. Even if they didn't have the
tradition the newcomers spoke on, they could have raelized the truth
in the claims, and had no special reason to reject them. They probably
weren't too harder than their former Pagan religions. Judaism is
indeed different - it's a very difficult religion (I read there're 613
commandments in it! Islam has 5, Christianity 7). If it's neither true
nor easy people won't be happy to accept it. Meaning they'll leave it
as soon as posssible.

You can't deny that forceful conversions ever happened or were
successful.

About historical ignorance, well, that's exactly what's the Kuzari
Principle is about. If I knew nothing on my history, isn't still not a
reason to believe the priest. Especially if he tries to make my life
so uncomfortable and dangerous. If he says that my ancestors witnessed
something that forces me to accept his instructions, the first thing
I'll do is verify it with my ancestors.

So let's say that the priests put forward a claim about something
which supposely happened 100 generations ago.
Old people which have no living ancestors can't ask anyone, younger
people can ask old people.
Some of these old people are priests, so they confirm the story as
expected, the other are generally uneducated people which don't know
anything about their history.
Anyway everybody trusts their priestly class because priests are more
educated, perform a function of social control an cohesion, and have
the power to enforce their belifs with violence.

Okay, let's give you three answers.

1) KP forbids it... again, it's not logically impossible for many
priests to invent a story and hold only one version of it, but humans
just don't act this way. Each one would have had a slightly different
version, so in a whole, it won't convince anyone. But the tradition
itself will deny them. The young will ask, "where have you been
yesterday? how comes you didn't tell us this in the last 20, 30 or 40
years? how did this tradition spring into existance?". So you want to
assume that certain tales were present, and the priests only
formulated them at some instance, giving them a formal version
(possibly with a book). But then we should ask, whether these early
tales contain some extraordinary events (in the sense defined by KP
and KF). If not, then the young would again ask how did these suddenly
spring into existance. If yes, then the KP again assures us that these
tales couldn't have began unless true, so your scenario doesn't help.

2) The obligation point. I posted it some time ago, and assumed you
saw it. As I still don't know how to link to posts, I'll paste it
here. Basicallt this point enormously strengthens the KP.

As for the written story, maybe some daddy told his very young
children a tall tale, when they were old enough to understand
speech but too young to say "but Daddy, that's just a story,
right?", then when they were five years old they started working
the fields and telling these stories to their co-workers such as
manservants and maidservants (i.e. SLAVES), and then all these
children and slaves repeated the stories to their children, etc.
until after a few generations a million people had gotten various
versions of the story and most had forgotten that it was just a
story some daddy told his children. There's no proof otherwise.



Nice tale. But why stop here? let's continue it.

And then, the telling worker told his mate, "And since we were
SLAVES, and God freed us, you mustn't work every 7th day (salary
adjusted), you may not eat anything which is not Kosher (even if
you're hungry), you may not wear anything you want, you must pay at
least 10% annual tax from your fields, sacrifice a LOT of animals
every week, worship no other god, and pass on these tradition to you
children. And, of course, if ever someone tries to talk you out of
it,
you must agree to be killed before you submit. Even if he only wants
you to do some small job on the 7th day, or just bow to a statue.
Needless to say, order your kids to get killed just the same". Now,
even if his mates were EXTREMELY stupid, they'd walk to their
fathers,
to verify the story, before they accept these obligations. If it
turns
out that their fathers don't know about this tale, I woulnd't want to
be in the teller's place... And even is he was smarter, telling them
the story without the obligations, and tried to insert these
obligations some time later (or some generations later), they'd deny
him like "we believed in the sotry for a lot of time, without
obligations. Now you tell us that the story actually obligates us -
well, prove it....". See? Wheneven obligations are entered, you'd
better have a REALLY good reason to tell them.

(The last lines of htis paste actually address your priests scenario).

3) Unrelated to KP, the Bible presents a lot of refutable tests.
Still pasting.

But really, proofs for the divine source of the Bible are easy to
find. One strong proof is that the ancient Jews believed it (except
the point above, on how they started believing it). See, for example,
Exodus 34:23-24 - Here Moses orders the Jews to leave their home, and
come to God's place, three times a year. This custome was kept -
there're a lot of Roman sources confirming that (it was Pilatus's
nightmare... every such an event was a potential rebellion, and many
passed the 'potential' level). But then, Moses goes on and promises
that no man will ever steal the Jew's land when they're away. Which
sane person will make such a commitment? and this declaration could
be
verified millions of times (thousands of people each time * three
times a year * couple of centuries). Could you imagine what would
have
happened if it would have been falsified even once? The happy refuter
would stand and shout: "Okay, guys, you CAN work on the 7th day! eat
anything! kill these priests who tried to prevent us from enjoying
life! etc.etc.". The rebellion would be immediate. Yet, the Jews
continued believing the Bible.


Just read the Bible again. It has many, many easy tests which the
Jews could run, in order to refute it (e.g. Leviticus 25:4 and
25:20-21). And the human nature is, that when someone tries to make
our lives less comfortable, we demand a serious proof that he knows
what he speaks on. And when someone supplies an excuse to make life
more comfortable, we jump on the oppurtunity, not thinking twise.

(which sane priest will create such an easily refutable religion?)


My ignorance of this tradition
is the best arguemnt I'll have against him... people just don't
believe such tales. Especially when they're so obligating.

This is not realistic.
Most people know very little about their history and rely on
authoritative figures for it.
Where did you get most of your historical knowledge (both about
religion and other matters) from?
From your parents or from history teachers and history books?

Again, your point is about an adult, who is suddenly introduced to a
"new" history line of his people. And an obligating one.

In the early Jewish society virtually all teachers were priests.

Addressed above.

Will you belive your father if he confirmed my story if I had the
power to stone him to death in case he didn't?

Then he'll do the best to clarify the truth to me. And usually,
parents are willing to die to ensure their children better lives. It's
hard to believe that the father, preferring his own life, will doom
his children's. And anyway, it'll be very clear to the children that
he doesn't speak out of real faith, but only because he's forced. Of
course, in this scenario, the children will pass the tradition on
(assuming again that they will unnaturally prefer their own lives),
because they have to, but a true faith will never emerge. That will
ensure that this tradition will disappear at once, when the enforcing
force is gone (and it is, long ago).

I don't KNOW that the LoR is incorrect. As far as I know, our
physics theories might be wrong, and the story might be possible. Many
physical theories were refuted during history, and 'impossible' things
were proven to be correct. However, I don't have a reason to assume
that on the LoR. So until I have a proof, I reject it, not with
certainty, but only because I don't have a reason to believe it. If
the reason is later supplied, I'll believe it. The fact I don't
believe it now, won't bother me then.

Then you should apply the same logic to your Bible.

I do. The reason to 'start believing' it is this unfakeable
tradition. Or the refutable tests.

What tests?

See above. I wrote it thinking you did see that post.

Then you disagree with using forensic science to investigate crimes
don't you?
How could we know that the laws of nature we observe now were the same
when the crime has been committed?

Only because of the razor. Yet, if I have a reason to belive they
WERE different, I'll remember that this reason has only to overcome
the razor, not any harder. In most crimes, there's no such reason. In
the Bible's case, there is.

Which reason, except "the Bible says so?"

Again, tradition, obligations and refutable tests.

Why do you say the tradition is unreliable? my whole point is based
on the reliability of this tradition! So let's talk straight. Have any
evidence? or other reason to doubt the reliability?

See above.

Again, the Kuzari explicitly differs between reliable traditions and
unreliable ones. As it happened, only the Jews have a reliable one
(and of course the other Biblical religions - it's just the same one,
excep that the Jews have the obligations point).

And basically yes. Any tradition-supported claim (religious or not)
should be accepted, provided its tradition is strong enough. I think
the wikipedia's Kuzari page states it as a clear consequence of the
principle.

So you must accept any claim by any religion in existence.

The Kuzari says that he's obligated to accept any claim (religious
or not) which is supported by a reliable tradition. Yust quotes it,
and I quoted Yuse above, and the Wikipedia also writes it. Again, the
emphasis is the the support by reliable tradition.

Different religions make conflictual claims. They can't be all true
but they can be all wrong.

Who was Jesus for instance?
The Jewish tradition says he was a false prophet.
The Christian tradition says he was (and is) God.
The Muslim tradition says he was a true prophet.

Obviously they can't be all correct.

The KP can prove that he really existed. Many people saw him, and
his existance was surely "momentous", having great inpact on world's
history (Jews included). KP asserts that his existance can't be
denied, as the Exodus can't. But here's where KP ends its rule. It
can't prove that he was a prophet (not to speak of God's son), since
you can't have a tradition on that. Witnesses can't KNOW he's a
prophet - they can, for example, see him doing miracles, and conclude
that he's a prophet. KP can assure that these miracles are passed to
us unaltered (if they happen to have a reliable tradition to support
them - e.g. Jesus is claimed to have been revived three days after his
crusification, and that was witnessed by three women. They told a lof
of people. KP can assure us that three women indeed told a lot of
people that - the fact that they told it may be passed reliably. But
the revival itself can't be proved using KP, as it was witnessed by
only three. It's perfectly possible for them to have invented it, so
KP doesn't apply. Had it been witnessed by millions, it would've been
different. So the revival should be proved by other means). After KP
ensures us of his actions, we need to conclude ourselves whether he's
a prophet.

Actually that's the way Islam works. First, the Bible is proved by
KP (or other arguments). Then, it means that the concept of prophets
is possible. Then we only have to prove the Muhammad was one. While
unprovale by KP, it may still be provable by other means. That's only
a technical problem. Indeed, the Jews argue that it wasn't proved, and
the Muslim argue that it was. Christianity's case is somewhat harder -
the concept of God's son isn't apparent from the Old Testament, but
yet, it may be provable by other means.

Anyway, your application of the KP to Jesus's nature (rather than to
his existance) is meaningless.

And what about the Creation stories of the various religions? They
differ greatly.


The KP can be applied to no one, as no one had witnessed it. They're
always proved (or claim to be proved) by other means. For example, the
Biblical religions prove the Bible (e.g. by KP), and then the Creation
story is proved, since the proved Bible testifies on it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... if that was the only reason to believe in a supernatural ... in history and don't need any supernatural explanation. ... those persecutions against Jews were never ... that this tradition is correct, and passed it on to their childs, I ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Herodotos
    ... >>reason) clearly and therefore drummed up a substitute ... But Herodotus started the idea that one ... > should tell history accurately and try to tell it without ... European/Western tradition look back to his example. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... if that was the only reason to believe in a supernatural ... Tradition 'proves' lots of contraddictory claims which are not ... aimed at destroying Jews althogether. ... so you can't claim that modern Jews share culture of medieval ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Data modeling in MV, revisited
    ... Since we can think of files as modeling ... persistence for some reason and popping it back up when using it, ... The history is its own relation. ... how developers are supposed to design the data model in each. ...
    (comp.databases.pick)
  • Re: Treason, 2pid, plain and simple
    ... Let's look at a relevant legal reference: ... The reason it resembles a fortress ... martyrdom, with the result of custody by The Enemy. ... In the short history of modern democracies, ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
Loading