Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 28, 2015 at 3:35 pm
(This post was last modified: January 28, 2015 at 3:36 pm by Esquilax.)
(January 28, 2015 at 3:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: (January 28, 2015 at 3:15 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
From the same article, if someone lived to age 10, then the average increased to 45-47. That means for every age 10-20 death, people were living 70 to 80 years.
That's for Classical Rome, genius. Not the Bronze and Iron Age, where your gospel finds its inception.
And incidentally, 45 is not 70, and I can't believe I need to tell somebody that those are different numbers, but you're grasping at straws so desperately here!
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
117
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 28, 2015 at 3:40 pm
(January 28, 2015 at 3:15 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Quote:In the Bronze and Iron Age LEB was 26 years
Quote:The most commonly used measure of life expectancy is life expectancy at age zero, that is, at birth (LEB), which can be defined in two ways: while cohort LEB is the mean length of life of an actual birth cohort (all individuals born a given year) and can be computed only for cohorts that were born many decades ago, so that all their members died, period LEB is the mean length of life of a hypothetical cohort assumed to be exposed since birth until death of all their members to the mortality rates observed at a given year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
To be fair, this is a little misleading. Life expectancy is a generally useless statistic. This would lead someone to believe that the average person's life span was 26 years old, or that most people were dying in their 20's. Not true. This speaks to high infant mortality rate. A lot of babies were dying, and that brings the life expectancy down. A better signifier of how long a person who survived infancy would live is average life span, or, more germane to this discussion, maximum human life span. For the former, it the best data for this seems to be that the Roman catacombs from that time include an overwhelming amount of 35-45 year olds. But, for the latter, there are plenty of examples of 70+ year olds from that time. Generally, the better off you were, and the more erudite you were, you stood a much better chance of surviving into your 60s-70s.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 28, 2015 at 3:41 pm
Median age could also be more useful in helping to understand how long you would live if you made it past, say, your 5th birthday.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 28, 2015 at 3:49 pm
(January 28, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: If the nonsense in the NT gets a pass from you, why not the miracle claims in the Quran, or the Gita, or the Book of Mormon?
How about Star Wars? They could read minds, communicate telepathically, see the future - like me - levitate and throw huge objects, and kill with their thoughts in that.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 28, 2015 at 4:09 pm
I went back in time and I wrote the bible. This is first hand testimony of authorship, before now the documents were largely anonymous. And I saw everything that happened myself, and wrote what I felt like. Some of it happened, some of it didn't.
I can't possibly provide evidence, because it's done now. I don't have the time machine anymore.
Everyone OK with that? I think this claim is as strong as those about the bible I've seen so far today.
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 28, 2015 at 4:25 pm
To summarize, if you can't impugn the beliefs of the people of the first century who really saw that Jesus was born, brought a radical message of love and redemption, died, and rose again, then you cannot impugn those that hold the same view today. Your objections are all after-the-fact opinions and so have less (or no) weight. When you try to draw parallels with unicorns, Star Wars and your time machine, you are totally missing the point that Christians have the first Christians.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 28, 2015 at 4:27 pm
You're missing the point. What you or anyone else believes is irrelevant. What you can demonstrate to be true is all that counts.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 28, 2015 at 4:27 pm
(This post was last modified: January 28, 2015 at 4:29 pm by robvalue.)
Did you miss what I just said?
There was no jesus, I made him up. Sorry!
Is my testimony being ignored? :o Is it just your unsubstantiated claims that should be believed?
I'm gonna impugn all the way to the bank.
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 28, 2015 at 4:29 pm
(This post was last modified: January 28, 2015 at 4:30 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
(January 28, 2015 at 4:25 pm)SteveII Wrote: To summarize, if you can't impugn the beliefs of the people of the first century who really saw that Jesus was born, brought a radical message of love and redemption, died, and rose again,
We're not saying that they didn't believe those things you tiresome dolt. We're saying that they were wrong.
Quote: then you cannot impugn those that hold the same view today.
I can, and I do.
Quote: Your objections are all after-the-fact opinions
Like the entirety of the New Testament and your so called 'evidence'?
Quote: and so have less (or no) weight. When you try to draw parallels with unicorns, Star Wars and your time machine, you are totally missing the point that Christians have the first Christians.
All of those things have the same amount of 'evidence' (besides the fact that star wars at least uses some kinda reasonable science ideas) as your claims about Jesus.
You make the claim, we say we do not accept your claim. Your response is "people really believed it back then, you can't prove them wrong, therefore it's reasonable to believe in my claims".
You have to be able to see the problem with that.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 35
Threads: 1
Joined: January 9, 2015
Reputation:
0
RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 28, 2015 at 4:41 pm
(January 27, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ...you bring up Neanderthal, a species for whom we have a genetic record, which is an objective indicator that it was a separate species from us.
If you look at a side view of both the Neanderthal and modern Australian Aboriginal skulls, you can basically overlay one on top of the other. Do you believe that modern Aboriginals are a separate species?
|
