Atheist Holiday

Originally posted by whodey
Ok then, I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Well, that would be nice if some one could show one way or the other. Nevertheless, even in the absence of a counterexample, you can't simply claim that Israel had the first instituted day of rest in human history. You have absolutely nothing to base that off of. I really don't know why you find it so uncomfortable to use the weaker may have been statement.

Originally posted by telerion
Well, that would be nice if some one could show one way or the other. Nevertheless, even in the absence of a counterexample, you can't simply say claim that Israel had the first instituted day of rest in human history. You have absolutely nothing to base that off of. I really don't know why you find it so uncomfortable to use the weaker may have been statement.

It is not my job to prove a negative, rather, it is your job to prove otherwise.

Edit: Oh no, I am beginning to sound like an atheist!!!

Originally posted by whodey
It is not my job to prove a negative, rather, it is your job to prove otherwise.

Edit: Oh no, I am beginning to sound like an atheist!!!

You've gotta be kidding me, whodey. Your retorts have gone from puzzlingly vague to completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by telerion
You've gotta be kidding me, whodey. Your retorts have gone from puzzlingly vague to completely irrelevant.

I was hoping for going from completly irrelevant to puzzlingly vague. Oh well.

Think about what I am saying. We have proof that the Mosaic law introduced a day of rest within the ancient world. However, as of yet we have no proof that this originated somewhere else. Until then we can assume that it originated via the Mosaic edict.

Originally posted by whodey
I was hoping for going from completly irrelevant to puzzlingly vague. Oh well.

Think about what I am saying. We have proof that the Mosaic law introduced a day of rest within the ancient world. However, as of yet we have no proof that this originated somewhere else. Until then we can assume that it originated via the Mosaic edict.

No. Until then you can say that "the first recorded day of rest currently known to me is that found in the Mosaic Law." You know modern Biblical Archeology (apart from the few remaining fundamentalist Evangelicals in the field) place the writing of the Torah much later in history than popularly taught in Christian schools and churches? The estimated date now is between 700 BCE and 600BCE (or BC if you prefer). There's a lot of major civilizations between the beginning of recorded human history and that time.

That doesn't prove anything of course. But it should give you some pause before flippantly making absolute historical declarations based on nothing more than your reading of one book.

Originally posted by telerion
That doesn't prove anything of course. But it should give you some pause before flippantly making absolute historical declarations based on nothing more than your reading of one book.[/b]

Did you hear Dawkins tell you this?

Originally posted by telerion
Where did you hear that? Taking the OP as an example, you can understand why I'm skeptical if it's something you heard in church.

Sorry, I coud'nt resist after thinking about your previous quote above.

Originally posted by whodey
I did'nt ask if they had 7 day weeks, rather, I am asking if the Mosaic law was the first to mandate a day of rest within that 7 day stretch within the ancient world.

You didn't ask you stated it as an unproven fact. You have no evidence for it whatsoever. I have no evidence to the contrary but don't really care. I do know that we would have rest days even if mosaic law had never mandated it.

Originally posted by whodey
We have proof that the Mosaic law introduced a day of rest within the ancient world. However, as of yet we have no proof that this originated somewhere else. Until then we can assume that it originated via the Mosaic edict.

To demonstrate the fallacy in your argument:
Hinduism is the oldest know record of people worshiping god(s). We have no proof that anyone else worshiped gods before them. So until then we can assume that the god concept originated with them and that if it wasn't for them there would be no religions in the world today after all it would be quite stupid for slave owners to allow their slaves to worship anyone other than themselves wouldn't it?

Originally posted by whodey
Did you hear Dawkins tell you this?

You're really making no sense at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You didn't ask you stated it as an unproven fact. You have no evidence for it whatsoever. I have no evidence to the contrary but don't really care. I do know that we would have rest days even if mosaic law had never mandated it.

So you are saying that:
1. I have evidence that the Mosaic law in the ancient world indtroduced a day of rest but it is not really evidence.
2. You have no evidence that it was not the first to introduce a day of rest but you really don't care.
3. You claim that we would have a rest day with or without the Mosaic mandate setting a precedent but offer no evidence whatsoever for this claim.

Am I correct?

Originally posted by whodey
So you are saying that:
1. I have evidence that the Mosaic law in the ancient world indtroduced a day of rest but it is not really evidence.
2. You have no evidence that it was not the first to introduce a day of rest but you really don't care.
3. You claim that we would have a rest day with or without the Mosaic mandate setting a precedent but offer no evidence whatsoever for this claim.

Am I correct?

1. No. I didn't see you present any evidence and don't think you have any.

2. Yes.

3. Almost. My claim was that we would have rest days, not necessarily on a one out of seven day schedule. Of course I am not certain and cant really present evidence for something so hypothetical but I think that if you did a bit of research (which I am not prepared to bother with) you would find that many societies / traditions did have a day of rest quite separate from mosaic law etc. Certainly the 7 day week was not derived entirely from mosaic law.

Keep in mind that the current practice in most parts of the world are two days of rest due to Christian and Muslim traditions not solely the mosaic law.

Originally posted by whodey
So you are saying that:
1. I have evidence that the Mosaic law in the ancient world indtroduced a day of rest but it is not really evidence.
2. You have no evidence that it was not the first to introduce a day of rest but you really don't care.
3. You claim that we would have a rest day with or without the Mosaic mandate setting a precedent but offer no evidence whatsoever for this claim.

Am I correct?

In regards to (1), you have no evidence that Mosaic law introduced a day rest into the early Iron Age. You only have evidence that Israel had a day of rest. You don't even have proof that the Mosaic Law was the introduction of a day of rest into Israel (though I think you have pretty good evidence for that)

As far as (3), evidence for increased leisure time (i.e. reduced workweeks) is widespread in empirical economics. There is a clear pattern that as a country's wealth increases it tends to reduce hours worked (in economics such a decision is known as the "income effect" ). It makes sense from that to assume that even if Israel introduced a day of rest, the practice would have arisen elsewhere eventually.

Originally posted by telerion
In regards to (1), you have no evidence that Mosaic law [b]introduced a day rest into the early Iron Age. You only have evidence that Israel had a day of rest. You don't even have proof that the Mosaic Law was the introduction of a day of rest into Israel (though I think you have pretty good evidence for that)

As far as (3), evidence for increased ...[text shortened]... ven if Israel introduced a day of rest, the practice would have arisen elsewhere eventually.[/b]

Bread and circuses!

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
The Bible says that "the fool has said in his heart that there is no God." Calling someone a "fool" is an ad hominem attack, which is a basic logical fallacy. In God's defense, maybe (S)he never got around to taking Logic 101.

Calling someone a fool may sound like an attack, and it may be ad hominem (against the person), but by itself it is not the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. The statement in question is:

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God" (first line of Psalm 14:1, New American Standard Bible).

One may disagree with the statement, but it does not state that "there is a God" BECAUSE "those who believe that there is no God are fools." That would be an argumentum ad hominem. The statement is not really an argument at all; it is more of a declaration. But if one were to extract an argument from it, it would go something like this:

PREMISES: (1) One of the major revealed truths presented in the Bible is that there is a God (Deuteronomy 6:4, 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 11:6).

(2) Biblically, foolishness is that which is contrary to wisdom; namely, the wisdom of God as revealed in the Bible (e.g. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction" [Proverbs 1:7]). True knowledge is associated with wisdom; to despise truth is to be or act as a fool. This is essentially a Biblical definition of what a fool is.

ARGUMENT:
1. It is true that there is a God (premise #1).
2. To believe ("says in his heart" ) contrary to truth is to be a fool (premise #2).
3. Therefore, one who believes that there is no God is a fool.

One may disagree with the premises, but it is a valid argument.