6 ms·

Care to support your silly insults and claims with serious data points that would scientifically prove and “verify” that help researching civilizations shaping

Care to support your silly insults and claims with serious data points that would scientifically prove and “verify” that help researching civilizations shaping scriptures is worthless? I guess not, therefore it was a comment from personal resentment and ignorance, aka “dumb”.

angoragoats 1mo ago
I made no claims or insults. The person I was replying to said nothing about “researching civilizations shaping scriptures.” They are making an app whose primary purpose is to quote Bible verses to the user. Are you sure you’re replying in the right thread?
- aristofun 1mo ago
  Now you’re acting stupid again. intentionally? Your question contains an insulting implication. Accurate quoting of scriptires is obviously aiding research, either personal spiritual or academic and everything in between (why else would you care about accuracy?). And you showed obvious disrespect to this work, now trying to reframe yourself as if you didn’t mean anything. Have at least some decency to own and stay your ground.
  - defrost 1mo ago
    Please don't fulminate or post snarky comments on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - angoragoats 1mo ago
    > Your question contains an insulting implication What is the insulting implication? I do apologize if you're insulted by the fact that there doesn't appear to exist any way to verify the non-mundane or supernatural claims in ancient religious texts, but that is a fact. In the case of the Bible specifically, it is evidenced by the fact that no one in ~2000 years has done it. And in the case of certain Biblical claims, e.g. that there was a global flood, that everything in existence was created in seven days and in a specific (nonsensical) order, and that it's possible for someone to be resurrected from the dead, there is overwhelming scientific evidence against them. If you think I'm wrong, I would welcome published and peer-reviewed citations. I'm completely open to changing my view. > Accurate quoting of scriptires is obviously aiding research, either personal spiritual or academic and everything in between Your previous reply implied that I was claiming that "help researching civilizations shaping scriptures is worthless." I took this to mean something specific: anthropological research regarding human civilizations that were involved in shaping religious texts. Now you appear to be widening your claim to any research of any sort (including "personal spiritual," which is definitely not research in the academic sense of the term). I apologize if I misunderstood your original point, but if I didn't, it's dishonest to change it mid-argument. > And you showed obvious disrespect to this work, now trying to reframe yourself as if you didn’t mean anything. First, let me apologize for being unclear on one thing in my reply: I said "I made no claims or insults." When I said "claims", I meant "claims regarding researching civilizations shaping scriptures" (the thing you accused me of making claims about). Second, I'll be crystal clear: if you're referring to the Bible, I don't believe it's a text worthy of respect. As an undoubtedly influential text, of course it's worthy of study, and it's worthy of analysis, but I believe study and analysis show that it's a book full of vile things like how to own human beings as property, how to commit genocide, how to physically and sexually abuse others, etc. I am happy to provide citations of specific bible verses that support those claims, including citations in the original Hebrew/Greek for words that might have gotten changed in different translations (e.g. עבד being translated as "servant" vs "slave"). But I'm not sure HN is the place for such detail. > Have at least some decency to own and stay your ground. I would gently advise you to do the same, or at least be clearer about what you mean.
    - aristofun 1mo ago
      You’re strawmanning the bible here, essentially. That shows the level of your ignorance. These days only ignorant and lazy people stick to purely literal and surface level interpretations of the bible. Just saying. But you are here to assert your “dawkins” grade of atheism, I get it. No worries. Just don’t pretend being objective when imposing your belief system and doubting someone’s hard work. I applogize for not being perfectly clear with my words.
      - angoragoats 1mo ago
        > You’re strawmanning the bible here, essentially. No, I don't think I am. What, specifically, do you think I am strawmanning? > These days only ignorant and lazy people stick to purely literal and surface level interpretations of the bible. I think it is clear from my previous response that I have done more than "literal and surface level interpretations" of the bible. But if you believe I haven't done enough, then it's on you to somehow show that, for example, Exodus 21 isn't actually telling the story of how God himself gave specific instructions for the proper way to do chattel slavery, and that it means something other than what countless scholars who have come before us agree that it says. Also, in the future, please be specific about which of my statements are wrong and why, and stop throwing around baseless insults. > But you are here to assert your “dawkins” grade of atheism I have no idea what you mean by this. > Just don’t pretend being objective when imposing your belief system and doubting someone’s hard work. I genuinely believe I am being objective. Please don't assert that you know things about my mental state when you don't. I don't have a "belief system" other than that I believe things that can be empirically shown to be true with a level of evidence commensurate to the claim. If you think that is something that can be "imposed" on others via an internet comment, I can only say in response that I support your right to believe whatever you want to believe, but you also need to suck it up if people call out those beliefs as illogical or unfounded. I was not doubting anyone's hard work.
        aristofun 1mo ago
        Can you empirically show that your consciousness exists? How can you then be so confident it is objective? Or prove that objective laws of math and logic exist?

angoragoats 1mo ago

I made no claims or insults. The person I was replying to said nothing about “researching civilizations shaping scriptures.” They are making an app whose primary purpose is to quote Bible verses to the user. Are you sure you’re replying in the right thread?

aristofun 1mo ago
Now you’re acting stupid again. intentionally? Your question contains an insulting implication. Accurate quoting of scriptires is obviously aiding research, either personal spiritual or academic and everything in between (why else would you care about accuracy?). And you showed obvious disrespect to this work, now trying to reframe yourself as if you didn’t mean anything. Have at least some decency to own and stay your ground.
- defrost 1mo ago
  Please don't fulminate or post snarky comments on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- angoragoats 1mo ago
  > Your question contains an insulting implication What is the insulting implication? I do apologize if you're insulted by the fact that there doesn't appear to exist any way to verify the non-mundane or supernatural claims in ancient religious texts, but that is a fact. In the case of the Bible specifically, it is evidenced by the fact that no one in ~2000 years has done it. And in the case of certain Biblical claims, e.g. that there was a global flood, that everything in existence was created in seven days and in a specific (nonsensical) order, and that it's possible for someone to be resurrected from the dead, there is overwhelming scientific evidence against them. If you think I'm wrong, I would welcome published and peer-reviewed citations. I'm completely open to changing my view. > Accurate quoting of scriptires is obviously aiding research, either personal spiritual or academic and everything in between Your previous reply implied that I was claiming that "help researching civilizations shaping scriptures is worthless." I took this to mean something specific: anthropological research regarding human civilizations that were involved in shaping religious texts. Now you appear to be widening your claim to any research of any sort (including "personal spiritual," which is definitely not research in the academic sense of the term). I apologize if I misunderstood your original point, but if I didn't, it's dishonest to change it mid-argument. > And you showed obvious disrespect to this work, now trying to reframe yourself as if you didn’t mean anything. First, let me apologize for being unclear on one thing in my reply: I said "I made no claims or insults." When I said "claims", I meant "claims regarding researching civilizations shaping scriptures" (the thing you accused me of making claims about). Second, I'll be crystal clear: if you're referring to the Bible, I don't believe it's a text worthy of respect. As an undoubtedly influential text, of course it's worthy of study, and it's worthy of analysis, but I believe study and analysis show that it's a book full of vile things like how to own human beings as property, how to commit genocide, how to physically and sexually abuse others, etc. I am happy to provide citations of specific bible verses that support those claims, including citations in the original Hebrew/Greek for words that might have gotten changed in different translations (e.g. עבד being translated as "servant" vs "slave"). But I'm not sure HN is the place for such detail. > Have at least some decency to own and stay your ground. I would gently advise you to do the same, or at least be clearer about what you mean.
  - aristofun 1mo ago
    You’re strawmanning the bible here, essentially. That shows the level of your ignorance. These days only ignorant and lazy people stick to purely literal and surface level interpretations of the bible. Just saying. But you are here to assert your “dawkins” grade of atheism, I get it. No worries. Just don’t pretend being objective when imposing your belief system and doubting someone’s hard work. I applogize for not being perfectly clear with my words.
    - angoragoats 1mo ago
      > You’re strawmanning the bible here, essentially. No, I don't think I am. What, specifically, do you think I am strawmanning? > These days only ignorant and lazy people stick to purely literal and surface level interpretations of the bible. I think it is clear from my previous response that I have done more than "literal and surface level interpretations" of the bible. But if you believe I haven't done enough, then it's on you to somehow show that, for example, Exodus 21 isn't actually telling the story of how God himself gave specific instructions for the proper way to do chattel slavery, and that it means something other than what countless scholars who have come before us agree that it says. Also, in the future, please be specific about which of my statements are wrong and why, and stop throwing around baseless insults. > But you are here to assert your “dawkins” grade of atheism I have no idea what you mean by this. > Just don’t pretend being objective when imposing your belief system and doubting someone’s hard work. I genuinely believe I am being objective. Please don't assert that you know things about my mental state when you don't. I don't have a "belief system" other than that I believe things that can be empirically shown to be true with a level of evidence commensurate to the claim. If you think that is something that can be "imposed" on others via an internet comment, I can only say in response that I support your right to believe whatever you want to believe, but you also need to suck it up if people call out those beliefs as illogical or unfounded. I was not doubting anyone's hard work.
      - aristofun 1mo ago
        Can you empirically show that your consciousness exists? How can you then be so confident it is objective? Or prove that objective laws of math and logic exist?