World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Just got back and updating now.

I wrote this in the third post at the beginning of the draft:

For the purposes of this category, all Biblical characters are to be treated as real people. I don't want to get into any debates as to whether Jesus or Moses actually lived. We'll assume they did in this draft.

I really don't care if you guys debate this or not, but please don't call each other stupid or tools. Last thing we need is someone reporting this, and then we get suspensions for people or the thread is cancelled. As Joe says, let's be excellent to each other. TIA

Good post. But doesn't that also imply that judges and/or voters are free to assume that Biblical characters aren't real people if they are selected in other categories?

As a judge, you are free to assume whatever you want.

So it's okay if we have a judge who assumes that Jesus turned water to wine and Moses parted a sea?

I'm sure many judges do believe this. Although, in the case of Moses, I think it was God who was supposed to part the sea. But keep in mind that the particular judge who will be evaluating Jesus and Moses does NOT believe this.

 

[larry_boy_44]

"Claimed by many" who? Christians?

I'd just like to have some extra-biblical citations that show these people to be real.

well, since the 4 gospels were written by different people (Luke & Acts = same person), that's 4 sources right there...Paul mentions Peter in his writings, so that's 5...

and Peter himself wrote at least 2 letters (since we still have 2 today)... That's 6 different people who have writings survived to today who state the Peter actually existed.

I'd love for you to find 6 first-hand accounts that Homer or Sun Tzu or Aristotle lived...

Which of these sources are extra-Biblical? Gospels, yup in the Bible. Are Paul's writings in the Bible? I honestly don't know but I'm pretty sure they are so that counts a yes. I'm not arguing that none of those existed, but in your quest to prove it you ignored the entire question. Any references to these guys outside of the Bible?

you are missing the point...If you can find me 6 different people who wrote about actually meeting Sun Tzu, Homer, and Aristotle, I'll find an extra-Biblical source for Peter...

but since I know that you cannot, maybe you should do a little more study on the history of the church and what exactly the Bible is made up of...

You're missing the point. Andy asked for any extra-Biblical sources. You answered with a bunch of sources within the Bible. How is that an answer to the question? And I don't even know what that last contentious statment means because I CLEARLY said that I wasn't questioning their existence, just your answer. But since you obviously missed it, I'll bold it for you.And FYI, I know EXACTLY what the Bible is made of, even if I have forgotten details in the twenty years since I last was in a church.

Also none of those guys appeared in a book of myths, legends and impossible actions like the Bible. It is not a fact based historical document like the writings we have about the other guys you mentioned.

it answers the question by pointing out the absurdity of Andy's request... Any doesn't require 1/6 of the evidence for at least a half dozen other people drafted that he requires for Biblical characters simply because they are in the Bible...My answer was in response to Andy's complete lack of perspective into his own bias that he has been letting run rampant in this thread...

you'll note that in my response to Andy I told him if he found me 6 different sources that verified that Homer, Aristotle, or Sun Tzu lived that I'd find him some non-Biblical sources that talk about Peter or Paul or Jesus... I even bolded it for you since you have obviously missed it up to now...

 

[timschochet]

Just got back and updating now.

I wrote this in the third post at the beginning of the draft:

For the purposes of this category, all Biblical characters are to be treated as real people. I don't want to get into any debates as to whether Jesus or Moses actually lived. We'll assume they did in this draft.

I really don't care if you guys debate this or not, but please don't call each other stupid or tools. Last thing we need is someone reporting this, and then we get suspensions for people or the thread is cancelled. As Joe says, let's be excellent to each other. TIA

Good post. But doesn't that also imply that judges and/or voters are free to assume that Biblical characters aren't real people if they are selected in other categories?

As a judge, you are free to assume whatever you want.

Not divine activity hopefully. I have no problem with their mortal incarnations and their importance to the spread of Christianity but if CHristian myths are going to be treated as truth because the judge has free rein to do so then I have a serious problem with it.

NCCommish is the religious figures judge and he does not believe in divinity. I wouldn't have minded a religious person doing this judging, however, so long as he/she at least tried to be impartial. That's all we can ask.

 

[mad sweeney]

well, since the 4 gospels were written by different people (Luke & Acts = same person), that's 4 sources right there...

Paul mentions Peter in his writings, so that's 5...

and Peter himself wrote at least 2 letters (since we still have 2 today)... That's 6 different people who have writings survived to today who state the Peter actually existed.

I'd love for you to find 6 first-hand accounts that Homer or Sun Tzu or Aristotle lived...

Which of these sources are extra-Biblical? Gospels, yup in the Bible. Are Paul's writings in the Bible? I honestly don't know but I'm pretty sure they are so that counts a yes. I'm not arguing that none of those existed, but in your quest to prove it you ignored the entire question. Any references to these guys outside of the Bible?

you are missing the point...If you can find me 6 different people who wrote about actually meeting Sun Tzu, Homer, and Aristotle, I'll find an extra-Biblical source for Peter...

but since I know that you cannot, maybe you should do a little more study on the history of the church and what exactly the Bible is made up of...

You're missing the point. Andy asked for any extra-Biblical sources. You answered with a bunch of sources within the Bible. How is that an answer to the question? And I don't even know what that last contentious statment means because I CLEARLY said that I wasn't questioning their existence, just your answer. But since you obviously missed it, I'll bold it for you.And FYI, I know EXACTLY what the Bible is made of, even if I have forgotten details in the twenty years since I last was in a church.

Also none of those guys appeared in a book of myths, legends and impossible actions like the Bible. It is not a fact based historical document like the writings we have about the other guys you mentioned.

it answers the question by pointing out the absurdity of Andy's request... Any doesn't require 1/6 of the evidence for at least a half dozen other people drafted that he requires for Biblical characters simply because they are in the Bible...My answer was in response to Andy's complete lack of perspective into his own bias that he has been letting run rampant in this thread...

you'll note that in my response to Andy I told him if he found me 6 different sources that verified that Homer, Aristotle, or Sun Tzu lived that I'd find him some non-Biblical sources that talk about Peter or Paul or Jesus... I even bolded it for you since you have obviously missed it up to now...

You're a real piece of work Larry. Reminds me of Cliff Clabin when someone asked him "What color is the sky in your world?" Andy asks if there's anything other than a disputable source and you pop up with a bunch of stuff from the same disputed source and then go on the offensive about it.

You accusing someone of lack of perspective and bias is probably the funniest thing I've read in this draft.

 

[larry_boy_44]

you are missing the point...If you can find me 6 different people who wrote about actually meeting Sun Tzu, Homer, and Aristotle, I'll find an extra-Biblical source for Peter...but since I know that you cannot, maybe you should do a little more study on the history of the church and what exactly the Bible is made up of...

You're missing the point. Andy asked for any extra-Biblical sources. You answered with a bunch of sources within the Bible. How is that an answer to the question? And I don't even know what that last contentious statment means because I CLEARLY said that I wasn't questioning their existence, just your answer. But since you obviously missed it, I'll bold it for you.And FYI, I know EXACTLY what the Bible is made of, even if I have forgotten details in the twenty years since I last was in a church.Also none of those guys appeared in a book of myths, legends and impossible actions like the Bible. It is not a fact based historical document like the writings we have about the other guys you mentioned.

it answers the question by pointing out the absurdity of Andy's request... Any doesn't require 1/6 of the evidence for at least a half dozen other people drafted that he requires for Biblical characters simply because they are in the Bible...My answer was in response to Andy's complete lack of perspective into his own bias that he has been letting run rampant in this thread...you'll note that in my response to Andy I told him if he found me 6 different sources that verified that Homer, Aristotle, or Sun Tzu lived that I'd find him some non-Biblical sources that talk about Peter or Paul or Jesus... I even bolded it for you since you have obviously missed it up to now...

You're a real piece of work Larry. Reminds me of Cliff Clabin when someone asked him "What color is the sky in your world?" Andy asks if there's anything other than a disputable source and you pop up with a bunch of stuff from the same disputed source and then go on the offensive about it. You accusing someone of lack of perspective and bias is probably the funniest thing I've read in this draft.

The Bible isn't "a disputable source", its numerous sources that each have completely separate and varying degrees of certainty to their existence...Which is the whole problem with you (and Andy's) bias showing up like this... It isn't based in reality.The Bible is NOT "one disputable source". It never has been. Are some portions of it and some stories in it considered questionable? Absolutely, some of them are considered outright false scientifically and historically... But most of the people after, say, Judges are considered to have lived, ESPECIALLY when referring to the New Testament (where there is little doubt that they lived)...You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.

 

[FUBAR]

Than it was someone else. I really don't consider this spotlighting anyhow. If either of them gets drafted, I'll probably quit.

if Mary is a celebrity based upon her recognition... be ready to quit.

 

[FUBAR]

As a judge, you are free to assume whatever you want.

So it's okay if we have a judge who assumes that Jesus turned water to wine and Moses parted a sea?

Why not? We allow our judge to think Madonna is a capable musician.

 

[Orange Crush]

Actually, Larry has a decent point if you view the Bible as a collection of separately conceived and published books, instead of one book with a sole author (and thus a single source).

As such, I think it is objectively clear that there is greater evidentiary proof of the existence of people named Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc. who were instrumental in the creation of the Christian religion, than there is of the existence of Socrates, who we only know of through one person's writings.

However, based on the rules as stated in the 3rd post, I think Larry made a big mistake drafting Solomon for philosopher and Mary for Celebrity as, unlike in the Religious Figure category, the judges can automatically rank them last if they so choose.

 

[Doug B]

Than it was someone else. I really don't consider this spotlighting anyhow. If either of them gets drafted, I'll probably quit.

if Mary is a celebrity based upon her recognition... be ready to quit.

I didn't have time over the weekend to comment on this one ... but I am hoping that the Celebrity category judge knocks Mary down several pegs.The reasons? Celebrity while alive, to me, is central to the definition of "celebrity". So central that I'd have never thought it needed to be spelled out.

Also, how does someone alive before the invention of the printing press get known globally in their lifetime?

Lastly, recognition as an artistic icon is not the same as celebrity. The numerous images of Mary in art reflect various interpretations of her physical features. What she actually looked like -- at a "photographic" level -- is completely unknown today.

 

[mad sweeney]

you are missing the point...

If you can find me 6 different people who wrote about actually meeting Sun Tzu, Homer, and Aristotle, I'll find an extra-Biblical source for Peter...

but since I know that you cannot, maybe you should do a little more study on the history of the church and what exactly the Bible is made up of...

You're missing the point. Andy asked for any extra-Biblical sources. You answered with a bunch of sources within the Bible. How is that an answer to the question? And I don't even know what that last contentious statment means because I CLEARLY said that I wasn't questioning their existence, just your answer. But since you obviously missed it, I'll bold it for you.And FYI, I know EXACTLY what the Bible is made of, even if I have forgotten details in the twenty years since I last was in a church.

Also none of those guys appeared in a book of myths, legends and impossible actions like the Bible. It is not a fact based historical document like the writings we have about the other guys you mentioned.

it answers the question by pointing out the absurdity of Andy's request... Any doesn't require 1/6 of the evidence for at least a half dozen other people drafted that he requires for Biblical characters simply because they are in the Bible...My answer was in response to Andy's complete lack of perspective into his own bias that he has been letting run rampant in this thread...

you'll note that in my response to Andy I told him if he found me 6 different sources that verified that Homer, Aristotle, or Sun Tzu lived that I'd find him some non-Biblical sources that talk about Peter or Paul or Jesus... I even bolded it for you since you have obviously missed it up to now...

You're a real piece of work Larry. Reminds me of Cliff Clabin when someone asked him "What color is the sky in your world?" Andy asks if there's anything other than a disputable source and you pop up with a bunch of stuff from the same disputed source and then go on the offensive about it.

You accusing someone of lack of perspective and bias is probably the funniest thing I've read in this draft.

The Bible isn't "a disputable source", its numerous sources that each have completely separate and varying degrees of certainty to their existence...Which is the whole problem with you (and Andy's) bias showing up like this... It isn't based in reality.

The Bible is NOT "one disputable source". It never has been. Are some portions of it and some stories in it considered questionable? Absolutely, some of them are considered outright false scientifically and historically... But most of the people after, say, Judges are considered to have lived, ESPECIALLY when referring to the New Testament (where there is little doubt that they lived)...

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.

The Bible isn't disputable, but there's uncertainty about some of it. That would make it a disputable source Larry.I AM NOT DISPUTING, NOR HAVE I DISPUTED THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE BIBLICAL DRAFTEES IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, only their divine acts.

You can blame it on my "anti Christianity" bias if it makes you feel morally superior (which is untrue, I don't believe in any of the religions) but the fact is that you answered absolutely 0% of Andy's request and you can't even seem to keep little facts (like how I am not disputing their existence) straight from post to post. I see with clear eyes homey, your bias and belief is what's clouding things.

 

[Orange Crush]

Just got back and updating now.

I wrote this in the third post at the beginning of the draft:

For the purposes of this category, all Biblical characters are to be treated as real people. I don't want to get into any debates as to whether Jesus or Moses actually lived. We'll assume they did in this draft.

I really don't care if you guys debate this or not, but please don't call each other stupid or tools. Last thing we need is someone reporting this, and then we get suspensions for people or the thread is cancelled. As Joe says, let's be excellent to each other. TIA

Good post. But doesn't that also imply that judges and/or voters are free to assume that Biblical characters aren't real people if they are selected in other categories?

Orange Crush is bringing up an excellent point. It is unfair that if (a) Biblical figures are explicitly allowed to be drafted that (b) judges are allowed to reflect upon a Biblical figure's "reality" when ranking a category.

I don't think it's unfair at all. The rules explicitly state the existence of religious figures is only to be assumed for the "Religious Figures" category. If you select someone for a different category, then the Judge is free to say that person didn't exist and rank them last. At least, that's how I interpret it. I mean, Larry can change Jesus' category to Explorer since he was allegedly the first to explore the afterlife and then come back. I wouldn't recommend it though.

 

[FUBAR]

Than it was someone else. I really don't consider this spotlighting anyhow. If either of them gets drafted, I'll probably quit.

if Mary is a celebrity based upon her recognition... be ready to quit.

I didn't have time over the weekend to comment on this one ... but I am hoping that the Celebrity category judge knocks Mary down several pegs.The reasons? Celebrity while alive, to me, is central to the definition of "celebrity". So central that I'd have never thought it needed to be spelled out.

Also, how does someone alive before the invention of the printing press get known globally in their lifetime?

Lastly, recognition as an artistic icon is not the same as celebrity. The numerous images of Mary in art reflect various interpretations of her physical features. What she actually looked like -- at a "photographic" level -- is completely unknown today.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. Mary might be more recognized by name, but Eve is darn close. Neither however, would be recognized by anyone alive today. For that matter, neither would Jesus unless he has that halo above his head.

 

[mad sweeney]

Than it was someone else. I really don't consider this spotlighting anyhow. If either of them gets drafted, I'll probably quit.

if Mary is a celebrity based upon her recognition... be ready to quit.

I didn't have time over the weekend to comment on this one ... but I am hoping that the Celebrity category judge knocks Mary down several pegs.The reasons? Celebrity while alive, to me, is central to the definition of "celebrity". So central that I'd have never thought it needed to be spelled out.

Also, how does someone alive before the invention of the printing press get known globally in their lifetime?

Lastly, recognition as an artistic icon is not the same as celebrity. The numerous images of Mary in art reflect various interpretations of her physical features. What she actually looked like -- at a "photographic" level -- is completely unknown today.

I made this point too. The category is defined as the people who are recognized everywhere they go. It's impossible for Mary to meet these criteria.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I should apologize for the length; however, this article was so enjoyable to read and later transcribe, I am including it in its entirety. I am a layman who simply cannot grasp quantum physics, but this helped me understand it on a basic level, and in doing so, made clear how important Mr. Bohr’s career was.

If you preferred something more succinct:

Niels Henrik David Bohr bio at the Virtual Jewish Library

Wiki entry

12.03 (223rd pick) - Niels Bohr - Scientist

Niels Bohr and the atom

Quantum mechanics constitutes the essential framework for twentieth-century physics. Providing a means for understanding the microworld, it has led to a host of major new technologies, including the transistor, the silicon chip, and nuclear energy. It has provided a far more comprehensive explanation of the chemical bond and brought about new ways of understanding biological phenomena and so lies at the root of a multitude of new methods of manipulating nature. Today, even cosmology depends upon quantum ideas, and apart from changing the mechanics of everyday life, quantum theory also lies behind broad shifts in philosophical thought. Of all those who developed quantum theory, the most eminent was the Danish physicist Niels Bohr.

Bohr's importance is doubly manifest, through his own work and through his overarching influence upon theoretical physics in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Beginning in 1913, his proposal of a highly influential model of the atom laid the basis for quantum mechanics as it finally emerged at the end of the 1920s. Bohr also examined the larger implications of the theory, which entails a radical break with determinism and common-sense notions of cause and effect; and his "Copenhagen interpretation" of the quantum world remains dominant today. With Niels Bohr there comes an end to mainstream efforts to discover some "ultimate" reality. "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is", according to Bohr. "Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

In 1911 when Bohr received his doctorate from the University of Copenhagen, the revolution in understanding the structure of the atom was already under way. Indeed, his doctoral thesis concerned the theory of electrons, which had been discovered about a decade earlier and were known to be the universal constituents of all matter. It had been suggested that the number of electrons in an atom corresponded to its weight, accounting for a variety of different stable atoms. Bohr moved to England to work with the scientist who made the crucial discovery that atoms possessed a compact, massive nucleus. This led physicists to abandon previous theories about atoms in favor of a new model of electrons orbiting a tiny nucleus.

In 1913, Bohr published three papers that concern atomic structure. They effectively changed the course of physics. Although the new model of the atom solved certain important problems, the crucial question remained why the orbiting electrons - evidently attracted to the nucleus - were not destined to be absorbed into it. In brief, the model did not account for the stability of the atom, which is one of its central features.

Bohr perceived that classical Newtonian mechanics could not explain the behavior of matter at atomic scale. He was inspired to turn to quantum physics. During a relatively brief period of intense work in 1912, Bohr examined ho a hydrogen atom radiated light and developed a theory which had an exceptionally close fit with observable facts. He assumed the electron radiated light only when it changed orbits, and so identified the emission of a “quantum” with the “jump” of an electron from one orbit to another. Einstein, upon learning of Bohr's results, commented with characteristic laconic certitude: "This is an enormous achievement"

The new Bohr model of the atom was a fundamental advance, and soon was used to gain a new understanding of the atomic structure of all the known elements. One of Bohr’s accomplishments in 1913 was to identify the quantum jumps of electrons with the X-ray spectra. The next year brought a new, definitive order to the periodic table, subjecting each of the chemical elements to X-ray spectral analysis and assigning to each an atomic number. Over the next several years Bohr managed a number of technical achievements which, a historian wrote, “In retrospect…are all the more fabulous and astounding because they are based on analogies – atomic orbits similar to the motion of the planets around the sun, and spin similar to the rotation of the planets while orbiting – which are in fact false.” Bohr was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1922.

Indeed Bohr’s model of the atom had several significant flaws. What sometimes is called the “first quantum revolution” did not resolve certain problems with the behavior of more complex atoms. Although the theory was developed in various ways between 1913 and 1925, it accumulated serious problems, which would ultimately lead to what is known as the “second quantum revolution”.

During the 1920s Bohr was a key figure in helping to resolve the crisis in physics generated in the atomic structure he himself had proposed. Returning to the University of Copenhagen in 1916, he became professor of theoretical physics and participating in the opening, five years later, of the Institute of Theoretical Physics. In this way Copenhagen became a magnet for physics, with Bohr the central figure. The “second quantum revolution” gave birth to a purely mathematical model of the atom, which effectively acknowledged the limitations of human perception in subatomic events. Advances in wave mechanics, matrix mechanics, and the famous Uncertainty Principle - which acknowledged restrictions upon direct knowledge of physical systems - epitomized it.

In the late 1920s Bohr evolved two principles to help guide the quantum revolution to a successful rebirth. In a famous lecture in 1927, “The Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Theory”, he first discussed the concept of “complementarity”. This is the idea that, although subatomic systems may be measured by contrasting, exclusive models – as waves or as particles – both are needed for a full description of the phenomena. Intrigued by the philosophical implications of the idea, Bohr eventually argued that the complementarity principle might be applied to the problem of free will and basic life processes. Perhaps the most important yield of this idea was that quantum theory was subsequently taken to offer a basically complete description of nature that would not be altered by future discoveries: There is no “deeper” reality lying beyond quantum measurements. Although this notion has been challenged in various ways, it remains the bedrock of the “Copenhagen spirit” – various thought experiments, the “mind of God,” and theories of multiple universes notwithstanding. This doctrine was never fully accepted by Albert Einstein, or a number of physicists, but it endures, basically unchanged, to the present.

During the 1930s Bohr began investigating the expanding field of nuclear physics and in 1934 suggested the “liquid drop” model for the nucleus of the atom; it proved important for understanding nuclear fission. In 1936 he provided a summary theory of the atomic nucleus that became a general guide for physicists over the next decade. In Bohr’s theory, neutrons and protons were tightly knit together in the nucleus by the “strong force”. Although the energy would clearly be released if this compound nucleus were disturbed, at this time the effects of splitting the atom were by no means clear.

After the onset of WWII, Bohr initially remained in Denmark, which was invaded by the Nazis in 1940. Because of his stature, he was able to help some of his colleagues escape persecution, and he refused to cooperate with the Nazi war aims. But in 1943, after rumors convinced him that he was soon to be imprisoned, he and his family escaped to Sweden, then to England and the United States. He soon joined the Manhattan Project, where, he was known by the assumed name of Nicholas Baker for security reasons (everyone called him “Uncle Nick” while he was there). His role in the project was important as a knowledgeable consultant or "father confessor" on the project. He was concerned about a nuclear arms race, and is quoted as saying, "That is why I went to America. They didn't need my help in making the atom bomb."

Bohr believed that atomic secrets should be shared by the international scientific community. After meeting with Bohr, the laboratory director suggested Bohr visit President Franklin D. Roosevelt to convince him that the Manhattan Project should be shared with the Russians in the hope of speeding up its results. Roosevelt suggested Bohr return to the United Kingdom to try to win British approval. Winston Churchill disagreed with the idea of openness towards the Russians.

Returning to Denmark after the war, Bohr was active until the end of his life, retiring from the University of Copenhagen in 1955. A committed scientist who remained opposed to the production of atomic weapons, Bohr wrote a famous public letter to the United Nations in 1950 arguing for rational, peaceful atomic policies:

“Humanity will be confronted with dangers of unprecedented character unless, in due time, measures can be taken to forestall a disastrous competition in such formidable armaments and to establish an international control of the manufacture and use of powerful materials.”

Bohr received the first U.S. Atoms for Peace Award in 1957. He died from a heart attack in his home in 1962 and following this scientists and leading figures worldwide joined in paying tributes to him. President Kennedy wrote, “American scientists, indeed all American citizens who knew doctor Bohr's name and his great contributions, have respected and venerated him for more than two generations.”

Highly collaborative in his approach to physics – rather unlike Einstein in this respect – Bohr was often the subject of lavish praise by colleagues, just as his family and friends adored him. Bohr created the ‘Copenhagen Style’: “We see him, the greatest among his colleagues, acting, taking, living as an equal in a group of young, optimistic, jocular, enthusiastic people, approaching the deepest riddles of nature with a spirit of attack, a spirit of freedom from conventional bonds, and a spirit of joy that can hardly be described.” This is truly the embodiment of academic freedom.

His happy marriage to Margrethe produced six sons, one of who, Aage Bohr, also became a theoretical physicists, and in 1975, he joined his father as a Nobel laureate.

How important were Bohr’s contribution to science? Historian Richard Rhodes (The Making of the Atom Bomb and Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race) puts it simply: “Bohr’s contributions to twentieth-century physics would rank second only to Einstein’s.” Author John Simmons (The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present) placed him third, behind only his friendly rival Albert, and Sir Isaac Newton.

 

[Abrantes]

What a surreal draft. Adam and Eve in non-religious categories? Seriously?

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

12.4 Tiger Woods - Athlete

I may take abuse for this pick but I can't think of anyone who has dominated their sport more than Tiger.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.

Um. Yeah. There's a lot of doubt about that.What you have is an unbending faith that you think is a substitute for proof. Which is what makes you the good Christian that you are, I guess.

But to say that it's irrefutable that these people existed is simply not true.

But you are right about one thing Larry - if I'm going to criticize the biblical picks, I should be criticizing the others that are of dubiously proven existence. For that, I do apologize. For that reason I think that since the rules have been made and the precedence made as to their selection, that there's little use in debating their validity as picks for this draft.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

12.4 Tiger Woods - AthleteI may take abuse for this pick but I can't think of anyone who has dominated their sport more than Tiger.

It's a fine pick and Tiger arguably fits in the category of top 20 athletes of all time.Although the flip side of that is that some of the guys that came before him in his own sport might have been even more dominant than he.

 

[Mister CIA]

Than it was someone else. I really don't consider this spotlighting anyhow. If either of them gets drafted, I'll probably quit.

if Mary is a celebrity based upon her recognition... be ready to quit.

I didn't have time over the weekend to comment on this one ... but I am hoping that the Celebrity category judge knocks Mary down several pegs.

The reasons? Celebrity while alive, to me, is central to the definition of "celebrity". So central that I'd have never thought it needed to be spelled out.

Also, how does someone alive before the invention of the printing press get known globally in their lifetime?

Lastly, recognition as an artistic icon is not the same as celebrity. The numerous images of Mary in art reflect various interpretations of her physical features. What she actually looked like -- at a "photographic" level -- is completely unknown today.

Interesting point, and now I wonder where Cleopatra stands as a celebrity. She'll no doubt make for a strong wildcard pick.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Actually, Larry has a decent point if you view the Bible as a collection of separately conceived and published books, instead of one book with a sole author (and thus a single source). As such, I think it is objectively clear that there is greater evidentiary proof of the existence of people named Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc. who were instrumental in the creation of the Christian religion, than there is of the existence of Socrates, who we only know of through one person's writings.However, based on the rules as stated in the 3rd post, I think Larry made a big mistake drafting Solomon for philosopher and Mary for Celebrity as, unlike in the Religious Figure category, the judges can automatically rank them last if they so choose.

not unless:1. they ignore the name recognition Mary has (which was why I drafted her)and2. They ignore the works attributed to Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs) which are the backbone of my argument... The religious beliefs regarding his life are secondary to the writings that he has attributed to him...

 

[larry_boy_44]

You're missing the point. Andy asked for any extra-Biblical sources. You answered with a bunch of sources within the Bible. How is that an answer to the question? And I don't even know what that last contentious statment means because I CLEARLY said that I wasn't questioning their existence, just your answer. But since you obviously missed it, I'll bold it for you.

And FYI, I know EXACTLY what the Bible is made of, even if I have forgotten details in the twenty years since I last was in a church.

Also none of those guys appeared in a book of myths, legends and impossible actions like the Bible. It is not a fact based historical document like the writings we have about the other guys you mentioned.

it answers the question by pointing out the absurdity of Andy's request... Any doesn't require 1/6 of the evidence for at least a half dozen other people drafted that he requires for Biblical characters simply because they are in the Bible...My answer was in response to Andy's complete lack of perspective into his own bias that he has been letting run rampant in this thread...

you'll note that in my response to Andy I told him if he found me 6 different sources that verified that Homer, Aristotle, or Sun Tzu lived that I'd find him some non-Biblical sources that talk about Peter or Paul or Jesus... I even bolded it for you since you have obviously missed it up to now...

You're a real piece of work Larry. Reminds me of Cliff Clabin when someone asked him "What color is the sky in your world?" Andy asks if there's anything other than a disputable source and you pop up with a bunch of stuff from the same disputed source and then go on the offensive about it.

You accusing someone of lack of perspective and bias is probably the funniest thing I've read in this draft.

The Bible isn't "a disputable source", its numerous sources that each have completely separate and varying degrees of certainty to their existence...Which is the whole problem with you (and Andy's) bias showing up like this... It isn't based in reality.

The Bible is NOT "one disputable source". It never has been. Are some portions of it and some stories in it considered questionable? Absolutely, some of them are considered outright false scientifically and historically... But most of the people after, say, Judges are considered to have lived, ESPECIALLY when referring to the New Testament (where there is little doubt that they lived)...

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.

The Bible isn't disputable, but there's uncertainty about some of it. That would make it a disputable source Larry.I AM NOT DISPUTING, NOR HAVE I DISPUTED THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE BIBLICAL DRAFTEES IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, only their divine acts.

You can blame it on my "anti Christianity" bias if it makes you feel morally superior (which is untrue, I don't believe in any of the religions) but the fact is that you answered absolutely 0% of Andy's request and you can't even seem to keep little facts (like how I am not disputing their existence) straight from post to post. I see with clear eyes homey, your bias and belief is what's clouding things.

again, you are missing what I said due to your bias...My argument wasn't that the Bible is indisputable (as I said some of the stories are considered false historically/scientifically)... My argument is that the Bible is NOT ONE SOURCE!

The Bible is attributed to a bunch of different writers, and we know of at least 8 (writer of Matthew, writer of Mark, writer of Luke/Acts, writer of John, I-III John, Revelation/Paul/James/Jude/Peter) writers for the Old Testament... plus there is Moses and the first 5 books, David and Psalms (among others actually), Solomon and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs, the various prophets and their particular writings, plus whoever wrote Chronicles and the Book of Kings (I Samuel-II Kings)...

my bias has nothing to do with this because I BELIEVE that the Bible is truth and absolute in some way at all times, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing here that the Bible is multiple sources and, in the instance of New Testament characters, more than enough different sources to accept them as verified real people who actually lived.

again, maybe you should put your bias down and re-read what i said, because I said it clearly the first time, the second time, the third time, and now, finally, the fourth time...

 

[dparker713]

Than it was someone else. I really don't consider this spotlighting anyhow. If either of them gets drafted, I'll probably quit.

if Mary is a celebrity based upon her recognition... be ready to quit.

I didn't have time over the weekend to comment on this one ... but I am hoping that the Celebrity category judge knocks Mary down several pegs.

The reasons? Celebrity while alive, to me, is central to the definition of "celebrity". So central that I'd have never thought it needed to be spelled out.

Also, how does someone alive before the invention of the printing press get known globally in their lifetime?

Lastly, recognition as an artistic icon is not the same as celebrity. The numerous images of Mary in art reflect various interpretations of her physical features. What she actually looked like -- at a "photographic" level -- is completely unknown today.

Interesting point, and now I wonder where Cleopatra stands as a celebrity. She'll no doubt make for a strong wildcard pick.

There are plenty of people in the celebrity category that have gotten a boost to their reknown post mortem - King Tut, Elvis, Marilyn, Cleopatra, Princess Di, Mary. I have to admit, I was somewhat surprised by any pick prior to this century in this category, but these arent my teams so I think its entirely up to the drafters where they want to put these selections, and the voters as to how they want to respond.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.

Um. Yeah. There's a lot of doubt about that.What you have is an unbending faith that you think is a substitute for proof. Which is what makes you the good Christian that you are, I guess.

But to say that it's irrefutable that these people existed is simply not true.

But you are right about one thing Larry - if I'm going to criticize the biblical picks, I should be criticizing the others that are of dubiously proven existence. For that, I do apologize. For that reason I think that since the rules have been made and the precedence made as to their selection, that there's little use in debating their validity as picks for this draft.

you really think that it is debatable whether Jesus, Peter, and Paul existed? Really?Because you would be in the VAST minority on that opinion (even if we don't take into account the uneducated masses)

 

[larry_boy_44]

Than it was someone else. I really don't consider this spotlighting anyhow. If either of them gets drafted, I'll probably quit.

if Mary is a celebrity based upon her recognition... be ready to quit.

I didn't have time over the weekend to comment on this one ... but I am hoping that the Celebrity category judge knocks Mary down several pegs.

The reasons? Celebrity while alive, to me, is central to the definition of "celebrity". So central that I'd have never thought it needed to be spelled out.

Also, how does someone alive before the invention of the printing press get known globally in their lifetime?

Lastly, recognition as an artistic icon is not the same as celebrity. The numerous images of Mary in art reflect various interpretations of her physical features. What she actually looked like -- at a "photographic" level -- is completely unknown today.

Interesting point, and now I wonder where Cleopatra stands as a celebrity. She'll no doubt make for a strong wildcard pick.

although I find it interesting that, just like in the case of those of uncertain factual existence, the person deciding to object to the pick only speaks up when the character is of Biblical origin, and doesn't say a word when the person is non-Biblical...

 

[timschochet]

I have to agree with Larry in regard to his King Solomon pick. There should be no difference between the Bible relating to us that King Solomon was a real person with a real philosophy, and Plato telling us Socrates was a real person with a real philosophy. If I were the philosophy judge, I would rank both of these men based on the writings, and what their influence is.

However, an interesting point is made about Mary. I keep going back and forth on this; sometimes I think it's a very good celebrity pick; sometimes I think it's a terrible pick. Glad I don't have to decide.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

again, you are missing what I said due to your bias...

My argument wasn't that the Bible is indisputable (as I said some of the stories are considered false historically/scientifically)... My argument is that the Bible is NOT ONE SOURCE!

The Bible is attributed to a bunch of different writers, and we know of at least 8 (writer of Matthew, writer of Mark, writer of Luke/Acts, writer of John, I-III John, Revelation/Paul/James/Jude/Peter) writers for the Old Testament... plus there is Moses and the first 5 books, David and Psalms (among others actually), Solomon and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs, the various prophets and their particular writings, plus whoever wrote Chronicles and the Book of Kings (I Samuel-II Kings)...

my bias has nothing to do with this because I BELIEVE that the Bible is truth and absolute in some way at all times, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing here that the Bible is multiple sources and, in the instance of New Testament characters, more than enough different sources to accept them as verified real people who actually lived.

again, maybe you should put your bias down and re-read what i said, because I said it clearly the first time, the second time, the third time, and now, finally, the fourth time...

So you're saying that Peter writes about Paul (or whatever combination you choose) that it's proof that Paul existed?

 

[dparker713]

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.

Um. Yeah. There's a lot of doubt about that.What you have is an unbending faith that you think is a substitute for proof. Which is what makes you the good Christian that you are, I guess.

But to say that it's irrefutable that these people existed is simply not true.

But you are right about one thing Larry - if I'm going to criticize the biblical picks, I should be criticizing the others that are of dubiously proven existence. For that, I do apologize. For that reason I think that since the rules have been made and the precedence made as to their selection, that there's little use in debating their validity as picks for this draft.

Larry is overstating the evidence, its certainly not irrefutable. However, on balance its objectively far more likely than not that the people in the New Testament lived. Its simply irrational to completely discount texts simply because they are religious in nature and more specifically because they were cannonized in the Bible.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.

Um. Yeah. There's a lot of doubt about that.What you have is an unbending faith that you think is a substitute for proof. Which is what makes you the good Christian that you are, I guess.

But to say that it's irrefutable that these people existed is simply not true.

But you are right about one thing Larry - if I'm going to criticize the biblical picks, I should be criticizing the others that are of dubiously proven existence. For that, I do apologize. For that reason I think that since the rules have been made and the precedence made as to their selection, that there's little use in debating their validity as picks for this draft.

you really think that it is debatable whether Jesus, Peter, and Paul existed? Really?Because you would be in the VAST minority on that opinion (even if we don't take into account the uneducated masses)

Wouldn't be the first time. I know one thing for sure and that's that sanity is definitely not statistical.Again, I ask you... what extra-biblical (as in OUTSIDE the bible) historical citations could be used as "proof", if you will, of the existence of NT writers and especially Jesus himself?

 

[Orange Crush]

Actually, Larry has a decent point if you view the Bible as a collection of separately conceived and published books, instead of one book with a sole author (and thus a single source). As such, I think it is objectively clear that there is greater evidentiary proof of the existence of people named Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc. who were instrumental in the creation of the Christian religion, than there is of the existence of Socrates, who we only know of through one person's writings.However, based on the rules as stated in the 3rd post, I think Larry made a big mistake drafting Solomon for philosopher and Mary for Celebrity as, unlike in the Religious Figure category, the judges can automatically rank them last if they so choose.

not unless:1. they ignore the name recognition Mary has (which was why I drafted her)and2. They ignore the works attributed to Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs) which are the backbone of my argument... The religious beliefs regarding his life are secondary to the writings that he has attributed to him...

As to Mary, I think a judge can say that the thing that makes Mary famous, the immaculate conception, is myth and thus should not be considered in the category. Therefore, her celebrity status has the same strength as that of Santa Claus, based on a potentially real person, but completely divorced from reality and thus deserving of a very low ranking.As to Solomon, I think a Judge can question whether those writings should be attributed to him due to lack of solid proof that he wrote them. Therefore, he should be given a very low rank as there is no way to know that he's actually judging the correct person. Kind of like having AndyD place Francis Bacon as a Playwright with the claim that he was really the guy who wrote Shakespeare's plays. It may be true, but there's enough doubt to not give the claim as much weight as the other people drafted.ETA for slight clarification.

 

[dparker713]

again, you are missing what I said due to your bias...

My argument wasn't that the Bible is indisputable (as I said some of the stories are considered false historically/scientifically)... My argument is that the Bible is NOT ONE SOURCE!

The Bible is attributed to a bunch of different writers, and we know of at least 8 (writer of Matthew, writer of Mark, writer of Luke/Acts, writer of John, I-III John, Revelation/Paul/James/Jude/Peter) writers for the Old Testament... plus there is Moses and the first 5 books, David and Psalms (among others actually), Solomon and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs, the various prophets and their particular writings, plus whoever wrote Chronicles and the Book of Kings (I Samuel-II Kings)...

my bias has nothing to do with this because I BELIEVE that the Bible is truth and absolute in some way at all times, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing here that the Bible is multiple sources and, in the instance of New Testament characters, more than enough different sources to accept them as verified real people who actually lived.

again, maybe you should put your bias down and re-read what i said, because I said it clearly the first time, the second time, the third time, and now, finally, the fourth time...

So you're saying that Peter writes about Paul (or whatever combination you choose) that it's proof that Paul existed?

Plato wrote about Socrates and that seems to be sufficient for you

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Larry is overstating the evidence, its certainly not irrefutable. However, on balance its objectively far more likely than not that the people in the New Testament lived. Its simply irrational to completely discount texts simply because they are religious in nature and more specifically because they were cannonized in the Bible.

I believe I've already acquiesced that point.If it's not obvious that I have...I do.

 

[dparker713]

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.

Um. Yeah. There's a lot of doubt about that.What you have is an unbending faith that you think is a substitute for proof. Which is what makes you the good Christian that you are, I guess.

But to say that it's irrefutable that these people existed is simply not true.

But you are right about one thing Larry - if I'm going to criticize the biblical picks, I should be criticizing the others that are of dubiously proven existence. For that, I do apologize. For that reason I think that since the rules have been made and the precedence made as to their selection, that there's little use in debating their validity as picks for this draft.

you really think that it is debatable whether Jesus, Peter, and Paul existed? Really?Because you would be in the VAST minority on that opinion (even if we don't take into account the uneducated masses)

Wouldn't be the first time. I know one thing for sure and that's that sanity is definitely not statistical.Again, I ask you... what extra-biblical (as in OUTSIDE the bible) historical citations could be used as "proof", if you will, of the existence of NT writers and especially Jesus himself?

There are plenty, but these are the main gnostic gospels - and they're extra-biblicalGospel of Mary (recovered in 1896)[9]

Gospel of Thomas (versions found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt in 1898, and again in the Nag Hammadi Library)[10]

Gospel of Truth (Nag Hammadi Library)

Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Library)

Gospel of Judas (recovered via the antiquities black market in 1983, and then reconstructed in 2006)

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Plato wrote about Socrates and that seems to be sufficient for you

Fair point. But I've already said that I'm willing to drop my argument that these selections shouldn't have been allowed.What we're debating now is whether or not there is sufficient proof to say that these people existed at all.Two different ideas.

 

[Mister CIA]

I'm working on the write up for 12.02. It's a musician/performer, so whoever is next up, PM me if you are selecting from the same category. I'll be a while while pulling up youtubes.

 

[timschochet]

Niels Bohr is a phenomenal pick at this point in the draft. His discoveries are both awesome and scary to contemplate. It's interesting to me that so much time is being spent here on discussing the somewhat mythical characters of 2,000 and more years ago, but THIS very real man and a few of his contemporaries have brought mankind closer to understanding the secrets of the Universe than we ever were before.

 

[larry_boy_44]

again, you are missing what I said due to your bias...

My argument wasn't that the Bible is indisputable (as I said some of the stories are considered false historically/scientifically)... My argument is that the Bible is NOT ONE SOURCE!

The Bible is attributed to a bunch of different writers, and we know of at least 8 (writer of Matthew, writer of Mark, writer of Luke/Acts, writer of John, I-III John, Revelation/Paul/James/Jude/Peter) writers for the Old Testament... plus there is Moses and the first 5 books, David and Psalms (among others actually), Solomon and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs, the various prophets and their particular writings, plus whoever wrote Chronicles and the Book of Kings (I Samuel-II Kings)...

my bias has nothing to do with this because I BELIEVE that the Bible is truth and absolute in some way at all times, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing here that the Bible is multiple sources and, in the instance of New Testament characters, more than enough different sources to accept them as verified real people who actually lived.

again, maybe you should put your bias down and re-read what i said, because I said it clearly the first time, the second time, the third time, and now, finally, the fourth time...

So you're saying that Peter writes about Paul (or whatever combination you choose) that it's proof that Paul existed?

well, for Paul we have:- numerous letters written by Paul himself (which in the case of most people of antiquity serve as proof of their existence)

- letters from Peter speaking of Paul

- Luke's writings (Acts) that tell of Paul's journeys

- letters attributed to Paul that might not be Paul's, rather one of his students

I mean, seriously Andy, name me one other person in the whole of history that you would need more than 14 separate writings referencing the person's existence in order to believe that they actually existed?

 

[flysack]

I'm not asking because I'm offended - I'm not.

Attributing acts to the wrong person doesn't mean that the person didn't exist. Peter for example, who did exist, is claimed by many to be the first Pope. There are also many Christians, like me, who don't believe that. However, Peter's influence on mankind is pretty remarkable. If you want to use the possibility that the Catholic Church is wrong judging and voting that's fine. But to go to "he didn't exist" is a real stretch I think.

"Claimed by many" who? Christians?I'd just like to have some extra-biblical citations that show these people to be real.

How do we know Socrates was real?

Several people wrote about him in realistic or comic contexts. And nobody seriously claimed that he walked on water, made wine from water, or lived inside an effing whale for days.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.

Um. Yeah. There's a lot of doubt about that.What you have is an unbending faith that you think is a substitute for proof. Which is what makes you the good Christian that you are, I guess.

But to say that it's irrefutable that these people existed is simply not true.

But you are right about one thing Larry - if I'm going to criticize the biblical picks, I should be criticizing the others that are of dubiously proven existence. For that, I do apologize. For that reason I think that since the rules have been made and the precedence made as to their selection, that there's little use in debating their validity as picks for this draft.

you really think that it is debatable whether Jesus, Peter, and Paul existed? Really?Because you would be in the VAST minority on that opinion (even if we don't take into account the uneducated masses)

Wouldn't be the first time. I know one thing for sure and that's that sanity is definitely not statistical.Again, I ask you... what extra-biblical (as in OUTSIDE the bible) historical citations could be used as "proof", if you will, of the existence of NT writers and especially Jesus himself?

There are plenty, but these are the main gnostic gospels - and they're extra-biblicalGospel of Mary (recovered in 1896)[9]

Gospel of Thomas (versions found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt in 1898, and again in the Nag Hammadi Library)[10]

Gospel of Truth (Nag Hammadi Library)

Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Library)

Gospel of Judas (recovered via the antiquities black market in 1983, and then reconstructed in 2006)

Come on Larry. I'm giving you every chance here. These books are either apocryphal or Gnostic writings written specifically for early Christian followers and/or sub-sects.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.

Um. Yeah. There's a lot of doubt about that.What you have is an unbending faith that you think is a substitute for proof. Which is what makes you the good Christian that you are, I guess.

But to say that it's irrefutable that these people existed is simply not true.

But you are right about one thing Larry - if I'm going to criticize the biblical picks, I should be criticizing the others that are of dubiously proven existence. For that, I do apologize. For that reason I think that since the rules have been made and the precedence made as to their selection, that there's little use in debating their validity as picks for this draft.

you really think that it is debatable whether Jesus, Peter, and Paul existed? Really?Because you would be in the VAST minority on that opinion (even if we don't take into account the uneducated masses)

Wouldn't be the first time. I know one thing for sure and that's that sanity is definitely not statistical.Again, I ask you... what extra-biblical (as in OUTSIDE the bible) historical citations could be used as "proof", if you will, of the existence of NT writers and especially Jesus himself?

like I said, you provide me as many separate accounts that tell us of Homer, Aristotle, or Sun Tzu as there are for the people you object to... and I'll find you extra-Biblical accounts of Peter, Paul, and Jesus...

 

[larry_boy_44]

As to Solomon, I think a Judge can question whether those writings should be attributed to him due to lack of solid proof that he wrote them. Therefore, he should be given a very low rank as there is no way to know that he's actually judging the correct person. Kind of like having AndyD place Francis Bacon as a Playwright with the claim that he was really the guy who wrote Shakespeare's plays. It may be true, but there's enough doubt to not give the claim as much weight as the other people drafted.

so then we should also rank Homer, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, the other Greek guy (the "creator of Tragedy"), Sun Tzu, Ramesses, and pretty much every other person of ancient times, too, then, right?Because that is the only way you can state what you do about Solomon, is if you fairly put those same kind of constraints on the rankings of other people...

 

[Andy Dufresne]

again, you are missing what I said due to your bias...

My argument wasn't that the Bible is indisputable (as I said some of the stories are considered false historically/scientifically)... My argument is that the Bible is NOT ONE SOURCE!

The Bible is attributed to a bunch of different writers, and we know of at least 8 (writer of Matthew, writer of Mark, writer of Luke/Acts, writer of John, I-III John, Revelation/Paul/James/Jude/Peter) writers for the Old Testament... plus there is Moses and the first 5 books, David and Psalms (among others actually), Solomon and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs, the various prophets and their particular writings, plus whoever wrote Chronicles and the Book of Kings (I Samuel-II Kings)...

my bias has nothing to do with this because I BELIEVE that the Bible is truth and absolute in some way at all times, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing here that the Bible is multiple sources and, in the instance of New Testament characters, more than enough different sources to accept them as verified real people who actually lived.

again, maybe you should put your bias down and re-read what i said, because I said it clearly the first time, the second time, the third time, and now, finally, the fourth time...

So you're saying that Peter writes about Paul (or whatever combination you choose) that it's proof that Paul existed?

well, for Paul we have:- numerous letters written by Paul himself (which in the case of most people of antiquity serve as proof of their existence)

- letters from Peter speaking of Paul

- Luke's writings (Acts) that tell of Paul's journeys

- letters attributed to Paul that might not be Paul's, rather one of his students

I mean, seriously Andy, name me one other person in the whole of history that you would need more than 14 separate writings referencing the person's existence in order to believe that they actually existed?

You haven't proven to me at all that these people existed themselves, so saying that because one wrote about the other is meaningless. If the Easter Bunny writes to Santa Claus about Father Time, it doesn't mean that it's true because they're ALL fake.

I'm just asking you to give me some shred of EXTERNAL evidence that can give validation to ANY ONE of these people having existed.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

You (and Andy) are just letting your bias against Christianity and religion cloud your judgment... There is no doubt that Peter or Paul or Jesus lived, there is doubt about what they all did, yeah, but there is no doubt that they existed and were important in the formation of the religion we call Christianity.

Um. Yeah. There's a lot of doubt about that.What you have is an unbending faith that you think is a substitute for proof. Which is what makes you the good Christian that you are, I guess.

But to say that it's irrefutable that these people existed is simply not true.

But you are right about one thing Larry - if I'm going to criticize the biblical picks, I should be criticizing the others that are of dubiously proven existence. For that, I do apologize. For that reason I think that since the rules have been made and the precedence made as to their selection, that there's little use in debating their validity as picks for this draft.

you really think that it is debatable whether Jesus, Peter, and Paul existed? Really?Because you would be in the VAST minority on that opinion (even if we don't take into account the uneducated masses)

Wouldn't be the first time. I know one thing for sure and that's that sanity is definitely not statistical.Again, I ask you... what extra-biblical (as in OUTSIDE the bible) historical citations could be used as "proof", if you will, of the existence of NT writers and especially Jesus himself?

like I said, you provide me as many separate accounts that tell us of Homer, Aristotle, or Sun Tzu as there are for the people you object to... and I'll find you extra-Biblical accounts of Peter, Paul, and Jesus...

So, what you're saying is, you've got nothing?I haven't stated that there's irrefutable proof that those three people existed. You've stated that there is that your guys did. Where is it?

 

[larry_boy_44]

again, you are missing what I said due to your bias...

My argument wasn't that the Bible is indisputable (as I said some of the stories are considered false historically/scientifically)... My argument is that the Bible is NOT ONE SOURCE!

The Bible is attributed to a bunch of different writers, and we know of at least 8 (writer of Matthew, writer of Mark, writer of Luke/Acts, writer of John, I-III John, Revelation/Paul/James/Jude/Peter) writers for the Old Testament... plus there is Moses and the first 5 books, David and Psalms (among others actually), Solomon and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs, the various prophets and their particular writings, plus whoever wrote Chronicles and the Book of Kings (I Samuel-II Kings)...

my bias has nothing to do with this because I BELIEVE that the Bible is truth and absolute in some way at all times, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing here that the Bible is multiple sources and, in the instance of New Testament characters, more than enough different sources to accept them as verified real people who actually lived.

again, maybe you should put your bias down and re-read what i said, because I said it clearly the first time, the second time, the third time, and now, finally, the fourth time...

So you're saying that Peter writes about Paul (or whatever combination you choose) that it's proof that Paul existed?

well, for Paul we have:- numerous letters written by Paul himself (which in the case of most people of antiquity serve as proof of their existence)

- letters from Peter speaking of Paul

- Luke's writings (Acts) that tell of Paul's journeys

- letters attributed to Paul that might not be Paul's, rather one of his students

I mean, seriously Andy, name me one other person in the whole of history that you would need more than 14 separate writings referencing the person's existence in order to believe that they actually existed?

You haven't proven to me at all that these people existed themselves, so saying that because one wrote about the other is meaningless. If the Easter Bunny writes to Santa Claus about Father Time, it doesn't mean that it's true because they're ALL fake.

I'm just asking you to give me some shred of EXTERNAL evidence that can give validation to ANY ONE of these people having existed.

my only question to you is why you don't apply these same standards to everyone else (other than the fact that you wouldn't believe anything actually happened if you did)...

 

[Andy Dufresne]

again, you are missing what I said due to your bias...

My argument wasn't that the Bible is indisputable (as I said some of the stories are considered false historically/scientifically)... My argument is that the Bible is NOT ONE SOURCE!

The Bible is attributed to a bunch of different writers, and we know of at least 8 (writer of Matthew, writer of Mark, writer of Luke/Acts, writer of John, I-III John, Revelation/Paul/James/Jude/Peter) writers for the Old Testament... plus there is Moses and the first 5 books, David and Psalms (among others actually), Solomon and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & Song of Songs, the various prophets and their particular writings, plus whoever wrote Chronicles and the Book of Kings (I Samuel-II Kings)...

my bias has nothing to do with this because I BELIEVE that the Bible is truth and absolute in some way at all times, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing here that the Bible is multiple sources and, in the instance of New Testament characters, more than enough different sources to accept them as verified real people who actually lived.

again, maybe you should put your bias down and re-read what i said, because I said it clearly the first time, the second time, the third time, and now, finally, the fourth time...

So you're saying that Peter writes about Paul (or whatever combination you choose) that it's proof that Paul existed?

well, for Paul we have:- numerous letters written by Paul himself (which in the case of most people of antiquity serve as proof of their existence)

- letters from Peter speaking of Paul

- Luke's writings (Acts) that tell of Paul's journeys

- letters attributed to Paul that might not be Paul's, rather one of his students

I mean, seriously Andy, name me one other person in the whole of history that you would need more than 14 separate writings referencing the person's existence in order to believe that they actually existed?

You haven't proven to me at all that these people existed themselves, so saying that because one wrote about the other is meaningless. If the Easter Bunny writes to Santa Claus about Father Time, it doesn't mean that it's true because they're ALL fake.

I'm just asking you to give me some shred of EXTERNAL evidence that can give validation to ANY ONE of these people having existed.

my only question to you is why you don't apply these same standards to everyone else (other than the fact that you wouldn't believe anything actually happened if you did)...

I already admitted that I didn't and apologized for my double standard. So now what?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Um. Yeah. There's a lot of doubt about that.

What you have is an unbending faith that you think is a substitute for proof. Which is what makes you the good Christian that you are, I guess.

But to say that it's irrefutable that these people existed is simply not true.

But you are right about one thing Larry - if I'm going to criticize the biblical picks, I should be criticizing the others that are of dubiously proven existence. For that, I do apologize. For that reason I think that since the rules have been made and the precedence made as to their selection, that there's little use in debating their validity as picks for this draft.

you really think that it is debatable whether Jesus, Peter, and Paul existed? Really?Because you would be in the VAST minority on that opinion (even if we don't take into account the uneducated masses)

Wouldn't be the first time. I know one thing for sure and that's that sanity is definitely not statistical.Again, I ask you... what extra-biblical (as in OUTSIDE the bible) historical citations could be used as "proof", if you will, of the existence of NT writers and especially Jesus himself?

like I said, you provide me as many separate accounts that tell us of Homer, Aristotle, or Sun Tzu as there are for the people you object to... and I'll find you extra-Biblical accounts of Peter, Paul, and Jesus...

So, what you're saying is, you've got nothing?I haven't stated that there's irrefutable proof that those three people existed. You've stated that there is that your guys did. Where is it?

no, I stated that there are enough separate sources that it is more than safe to assume that they did (and to assume that they didn't is not a supportable position)...I also pointed out that you are a hypocrite and are only saying this because you obviously have a very strong bias and some real emotional issues towards Christianity that you should probably work out because you never once stated any of these objections over non-Biblical people in history...

 

[flysack]

We should have banned biblical (and other religious texts) figures from this draft.

why?

Oh no reason. They should be allowed. And for my next pick, I'll take MOBY ****, VILLAIN.

yes, because every Biblical character has as much basis in reality as Moby **** does...

are you aware of how incredibly stupid you sound when you say things like that?

You're right, Larry. Bad flysack, bad. You fool. You ignoramus. I'd like to substitute my MOBY **** pick with the whale Jonas lived in.

There! That's much better.

For my next pick, I'll take Puff The Magic Dragon - Celebrity (who lived with the dinosaurs).

 

[Ozymandias]

No you didn't...

I did did too...but you didn't

Yes I did, but you didn't...

Of course I did, but you did not...

So's your old man!

Your mother wears combat boots!

You and what army?

You're one too!

 

[timschochet]

Interesting thing I discovered in looking up Niels Bohr:

The Bohr–Einstein debates is a popular name given to what was actually a series of epistemological challenges presented by Albert Einstein against what has come to be called the standard or Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Since Einstein's closest friend and primary interlocutor in the "school" of Copenhagen was the physicist Niels Bohr, and since it was Bohr who provided answers to most of the challenges presented by Einstein, what was actually a friendly and fruitful series of exchanges of ideas has taken on the label of a "debate".

Einstein's position with respect to quantum mechanics is significantly more subtle and open-minded than it has often been portrayed in technical manuals and popular science articles[citation needed]. Be that as it may, his constant and powerful criticisms of the quantum "orthodoxy” compelled the defenders of that orthodoxy to sharpen and refine their understanding of the philosophical and scientific implications of their own theory.

Einstein's natural reference point, as mentioned above, was always Niels Bohr, as the person who, more than other members of the School of Copenhagen, was animated by a particular interest for the philosophical and epistemological aspects of the theory and drew inspiration from the surprising aspects of the microscopic world in order to present daring hypotheses about reality and about knowledge, such as his idea of complementarity. These two giants of scientific thought nurtured a profound respect for each other and they were both extremely attentive to the acute and penetrating observations of the other. The debate is not only of historical interest: as Einstein's attacks often provoked reactions on the part of Bohr which called into question the crucial elements of the formalization of QM and of its interpretation.

The actual debates themselves are way beyond my understanding. Here's an example:

The first serious attack by Einstein on the "orthodox" conception took place during the Fifth Conference of Physics at the Solvay Institute in 1927. Einstein pointed out how it was possible to take advantage of the (universally accepted) laws of conservation of energy and of impulse (momentum) in order to obtain information on the state of a particle in a process of interference which, according to the principle of indeterminacy or that of complementarity, should not be accessible.

Figure A. A monochromatic beam (one for which all the particles have the same impulse) encounters a first screen, diffracts, and the diffracted wave encounters a second screen with two slits resulting in the formation of an interference figure on the background F. As always, it is assumed that only one particle at a time is able to pass the entire mechanism. From the measure of the recoil of the screen S1, according to Einstein, one can deduce from which slit the particle has passed without destroying the wave aspects of the process.In order to follow his argumentation and to evaluate Bohr's response, it is convenient to refer to the experimental apparatus illustrated in figure A. A beam of light perpendicular to the X axis which propagates in the direction z encounters a screen S1 which presents a narrow (with respect to the wavelength of the ray) slit. After having passed through the slit, the wave function diffracts with an angular opening that causes it to encounter a second screen S2 which presents two slits. The successive propagation of the wave results in the formation of the interference figure on the final screen F.

At the passage through the two slits of the second screen S2, the wave aspects of the process become essential. In fact, it is precisely the interference between the two terms of the superposition corresponding to states in which the particle is localized in one of the two slits which implies that the particle is "guided" preferably into the zones of constructive interference and cannot end up in a point in the zones of destructive interference (in which the wave function is nullified). It is also important to note that any experiment designed to evidence the "corpuscular" aspects of the process at the passage of the screen S2 (which, in this case, reduces to the determination of which slit the particle has passed through) inevitably destroys the wave aspects, implies the disappearance of the interference figure and the emergence of two concentrated spots of diffraction which confirm our knowledge of the trajectory followed by the particle.

At this point Einstein brings into play the first screen as well and argues as follows: since the incident particles have velocities (practically) perpendicular to the screen S1, and since it is only the interaction with this screen that can cause a deflection from the original direction of propagation, by the law of conservation of impulse which implies that the sum of the impulses of two systems which interact is conserved, if the incident particle is deviated toward the top, the screen will recoil toward the bottom and vice-versa. In realistic conditions the mass of the screen is so heavy that it will remain stationary, but, in principle, it is possible to measure even an infinitesimal recoil. If we imagine taking the measurement of the impulse of the screen in the direction X after every single particle has passed, we can know, from the fact that the screen will be found recoiled toward the top (bottom), if the particle in question has been deviated toward the bottom (top) and therefore we can know from which slit in S2 the particle has passed. But since the determination of the direction of the recoil of the screen after the particle has passed cannot influence the successive development of the process, we will still have an interference figure on the screen F. The interference takes place precisely because the state of the system is the superposition of two states whose wave functions are non-zero only near one of the two slits. On the other hand, if every particle passes through only the slit b or the slit c, then the set of systems is the statistical mixture of the two states, which means that interference is not possible. If Einstein is correct, then there is a violation of the principle of indeterminacy.

Figure B. Bohr's representation of Einstein's thought experiment described above. The mobile window is evidenced in order to underscore the fact that the attempt to know which slit a particle passes through destroys the interference pattern.Bohr's response was to illustrate Einstein's idea more clearly via the diagrams in Figures B and C. Bohr observes that extremely precise knowledge of any (potential) vertical motion of the screen is an essential presupposition in Einstein's argument. In fact, if its velocity in the direction X before the passage of the particle is not known with a precision substantially greater than that induced by the recoil (that is, if it were already moving vertically with an unknown and greater velocity than that which it derives as a consequence of the contact with the particle), then the determination of its motion after the passage of the particle would not give the information we seek. However, Bohr continues, an extremely precise determination of the velocity of the screen, when one applies the principle of indeterminacy, implies an inevitable imprecision of its position in the direction X. Before the process even begins, the screen would therefore occupy an indeterminate position at least to a certain extent (defined by the formalism). Now consider, for example, the point d in figure A, where there is destructive interference. It's obvious that any displacement of the first screen would make the lengths of the two paths, a-b-d and a-c-d, different from those indicated in the figure. If the difference between the two paths varies by half a wavelength, at point d there will be constructive rather than destructive interference. The ideal experiment must average over all the possible positions of the screen S1, and, for every position, there corresponds, for a certain fixed point F, a different type of interference, from the perfectly destructive to the perfectly constructive. The effect of this averaging is that the pattern of interference on the screen F will be uniformly grey. Once more, our attempt to evidence the corpuscular aspects in S2 has destroyed the possibility of interference in F which depends crucially on the wave aspects.

XXXXXXXXX

If you can make heads or tails out of this, you are either a physicist yourself, or simply smarter than me.

 

[larry_boy_44]

We should have banned biblical (and other religious texts) figures from this draft.

why?

Oh no reason. They should be allowed. And for my next pick, I'll take MOBY ****, VILLAIN.

yes, because every Biblical character has as much basis in reality as Moby **** does...

are you aware of how incredibly stupid you sound when you say things like that?

You're right, Larry. Bad flysack, bad. You fool. You ignoramus. I'd like to substitute my MOBY **** pick with the whale Jonas lived in.

There! That's much better.

For my next pick, I'll take Puff The Magic Dragon - Celebrity (who lived with the dinosaurs).

yeah, again, your going so far off the deep end that all you are doing is harming your own credibility...

 

[flysack]

No you didn't...I did did too...but you didn'tYes I did, but you didn't...Of course I did, but you did not...So's your old man!Your mother wears combat boots!You and what army?You're one too!

I know you are, but what am I?! INFINITY!